On 1 May 2015 at 11:28, Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Friday, 1 May 2015 at 09:08:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> >> Walter tends to err on the side of wanting to break no code whatsoever, >> and >> he almost never seems to understand when folks actually _want_ their code >> broken, because they consider the current situation to be worse than >> having >> their code temporarily broken (e.g. because leaving the current state of >> things in place would result in far more bugs in the future). > > > It's not really as simple as that, and I think I understand W & A's position > here. > > It seems that every once in a while, someone on Reddit etc. is going to say > something along the lines of "I once tried to compile some code written in > D, and it didn't compile with none of the three compilers. I'm not familiar > with the language or code, so fixing it was out of the question, and so was > randomly trying old compiler versions. If other people are going to have the > same experience using MY code, then I don't see the point in investing time > in D." > > I was in the "break my code" camp for a long time, but this has gradually > changed as the amount of D code I've written grew. Let me tell you, it's > totally not fun when you need to quickly fix a D program you wrote 3 years > ago because something is on fire and it needs fixing now, and discover you > have to make a bunch of changes just to get it to compile again. The > alternative is using an older compiler, and DVM helps with that - but this > doesn't work if the fix is in a library which is not compatible with older > compiler versions. > > I would love a cleaner D language, if only it could be enforced just onto > NEW code.
pragma(old_code);