Le 13/03/2014 05:56, Sarath Kodali a écrit :
On Thursday, 13 March 2014 at 00:40:34 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
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.
It won't happen that way if we evolve D such that it won't break
existing code. Or manages it with long deprecation cycles. In 1989, ANSI
C had come up with new function style without breaking old function
style. After a while the new style has become the standard and the
compilers gave warning messages. In D, we can issue "deprecated" messages.
Wasn't it here that I heard that a language which doesn't evolve is a
dead language?
From looking at the atmosphere in this newsgroup, at least to me it
appears obvious that there are, in fact, D users who would be glad to
have their D code broken if it means that it will end up being written
in a better programming language. (I'm one of them, for the record; I
regularly break my own code anyway when refactoring my library.)
Although I'm not advocating forking off a D3 here and now, the list of
things we wish we could fix is only going to grow.
That is true if your code is under active development. What if you had a
production code that was written 2 years back?
- Sarath
Why D was chosen for a production development 2 years back and
development stopped? It's normally not an issue if :
a) D is well known in the company
b) Old D version still supported
For me it's clearly an issue to use a young language in a short term
development, from start you already know it will be difficult to
maintain (to few knowledge in the company, security issues, bugs,...)
