On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 14:29:06 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
[…] and a lack of attention paid to tightening up what we've already got and deprecating old stuff that no one wants any more.
This. The hypocritical fear of making breaking changes (the fact that not all of them are bad has been brought up over and over again by some of the corporate users) is crippling us, making D a much more cluttered language than necessary.
Seriously, once somebody comes up with an automatic fixup tool, there is hardly any generic argument left against language changes. Sure, there will always be some cases where manual intervention is still required, such as with string mixins. But unless we have lost hope that the D community is still to grow significantly, I don't see why the burden of proof should automatically lie on the side of those in favor of cleaning up cruft and semantical quirks.
Most D code is still to be written. David
