On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 04:43:51 -0400, Don <x...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 06:02:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/12/2014 9:23 PM, Manu wrote:
It's not minor, and it's not achievable by other means though.
class C { final: ... }
does it.
You and Andrei are the only resistance in this thread so far. Why
don't you ask
'temperamental client' what their opinion is? Give them a heads up,
perhaps
they'll be more reasonable than you anticipate?
I didn't even know about this client before the breakage. D has a lot
of users who we don't know about.
Both myself and Don have stated on behalf of industrial clients that
we embrace
breaking changes that move the language forward, or correct clearly
identifiable
mistakes.
Breaking changes has been a huge barrier to Don's company being able to
move from D1 to D2. I still support D1 specifically for Don's company.
Yes, but the problem is not the changes which cause compile errors and
force you to change your code in obvious ways. The problem is subtle
changes to behaviour.
The worst breaking change in D2, by far, is the prevention of array
stomping.
After that change, our code still runs, and produces exactly the same
results, but it is so slow that it's completely unusable. This one of
the main reasons we're still using D1.
What is your use case(s), might I ask? Prevention of array stomping, I
thought, had a net positive effect on performance, because it no longer
has to lock the GC for thread-local appends.
-Steve
