On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 13:29:45 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
Companies clearly value C++'s backwards compatibility. However, if there's one lesson from the D1/D2 or the Python 2/Python 3 split, it's that it's hugely disruptive (so much so that I find
The D1/D2 split was actually a unifier. It was the Phobos/Tango divide that was the problem. D2 healed that rift, brought us a single runtime that both libraries could share, improved Phobos, and was relatively easy for most projects to transition to (Sociomantic's experience was not common), and D1 was eventually retired. We're all better off for it. A vastly different situation than what happened with Python, where you find 2.x releases continuing on and some projects requiring one or the other.
That said, at this stage, I can't imagine a D2/D3 transition being anything other than negatively disruptive.
