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?
it would be a very long post. ;-) i scratched it a little above, though. my
private dmd fork has 100+ patches only to dmd itself, for example, and some
are disruptive enough that alot of my code is marked with `module a is aliced;`.
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.
and one of mine reasons was "yay, it is relatively new, unencumbered with
alot of legacy, and *evolving*!" none of it (our reasoning) is better over
another. ;-)
D its flaws are the Phobos documentation layout
one of the things i absolutely don't care about, for example. ;-) besides,
dpldocs rox.
So call me confused as to what is missing and needs such radical changes?
evolving. something very opposite to "stability", as expected by some
enterprise users. remember, not all D users are enterprise users. ;-) some
of us (me!) came here 'cause D is fun, not 'cause D is "stable", and we may
value stability much less than other kinds of users.
Unless i am wrong there seem to be only one or two people actually
pushing this D3 idea...
as for me, i'm not "pushing" it, i am merely "supporting" it. just to make
sure that other optinions besides "no, we don't need D3" are not seeing as
non-existant only due to their bearers being silent. ;-)
