On 14/06/2017 8:28 AM, Wulfklaue wrote:
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...
Don't worry too much about "D3". While I also want a "D3" it won't be a
big technical change, much more likely a philosophical change than
anything else.
In other words, except for the odd change like final by default for
classes(eww), there isn't anything that needs to change for D2. Only
smaller improvements which are well worth breaking current semantics.