On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 20:51:37 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Patrick Schluter wrote:
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).
Can you actually show us examples of what you think needs to
break?
Maybe i am too new to D but beyond a few oddities ( std.array
needed for string manipulation, ... ) i see not a lot wrong.
Do not underestimate the effect that rewriting a standard library
has on a language. Beyond sucking resources away ( D is not a
very big community project like Rust ).
Frankly one of the reasons why i ended up with D. It has the
kitchen and sink, has everything from generics, meta programming
and beyond. And the most import factor, it is STABLE. I am
working on a big project that needs stability for the next 10+
years. This D3 discussion is discouraging to read.
D its flaws are the Phobos documentation layout ( what is
partially solved by the Library documentation ), somewhat lacking
support on the editors, and other points. Mostly to do because of
the small community/lack of full time paid programmers.
So call me confused as to what is missing and needs such radical
changes? Because i can tell clearly from reading past forums, the
whole D1/D2 came up in so much topics it actually made me look
first into other languages. A D3 discussion is silly given the
history of the language.
Unless i am wrong there seem to be only one or two people
actually pushing this D3 idea...
