Le 13/03/2014 05:13, Mike a écrit :
On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 00:40:34 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
The saying goes, "you can't make a bucket of yogurt without a
spoonful of rennet". The pattern of resetting customer code into the
next version must end. It's the one thing that both current and
future users want: a pattern of stability and reliability.
Doesn't this sort of seal the language's fate in the long run, though?
Eventually, new programming languages will appear which will learn
from D's mistakes, and no new projects will be written in D.
Wasn't it here that I heard that a language which doesn't evolve is a
dead language?
IMO, one of the reasons D exists is all the historical baggage C/C++
chose to carry instead of evolving.
I can cite a business case I had the displeasure of working on as well.
They chose not to evolve, and instead ended up spending $11 million
years later to rewrite their infrastructure while maintaining the
antiquated one so they could still function. And the latter was never
realized. They're probably due for another large, time consuming,
disruptive, expensive project in the near future.
Point is, it's in the best interest of both languages and businesses
building on those languages to evolve, or they just end up paying the
piper later (with interest).
Gradual, managed change is where it's at, IMNSHO.
Just like I proposed creating a new major version every year will be
gradual with a know rhythm and well announced.
