Patrick Schluter wrote:
Before even contemplating a big disrupting language split like proposed by the OP, wouldn't it first more appropriate to write a nice article, DIP, blog, whatever, listing the defects of the current language that can not be solved by progressive evolution? I haven't the impression that the *language* itself suffer from so big flaws that it would warrant to fork it in a way that will lead to a lot frustration and bewilderment. D is not perfect, no question, but it is not in a state that would jusrify such a harsh approach.
the main reason for D3 is not language changes, but workarounding "don't break user code" thingy. it is completely impossible to experiment freely or introduce breaking changes in D2 (for a reason, there is nothing bad in it).
