"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.vwvownr8eav7ka@localhost.localdomain... > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:11:34 -0400, Mike James <f...@bar.com> wrote: > >> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message >> news:istj83$1rsa$1...@digitalmars.com... >>> I think we all agree that it is appropriate to characterize D2 to mean >>> "The >>> D Programming Language". >>> >>> From here on, we have changed the website >>> http://d-programming-language.org to reflect that reality. D simply >>> refers >>> to what was formerly known as D2, and D1 stays D1. >>> >>> Also, today Walter will change the "D" links from digitalmars.com to >>> point >>> to http://d-programming-language.org, which is now the official site of >>> the D programming language. Expect (and please contribute) many >>> improvements of that site going forward. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Andrei >> >> So D2 becomes D. >> And D1 becomes D--. > > D0 > > Seriously though, I'm not sure why we have to do this... It's weird to > have D1 and D. To me, D1 > D, like in D, D1, D2, D3 > > I hope this pattern doesn't continue for D3 (well, actually, would that > then be D2?) > > Why can't D2 be D version 2, and D1 be D version 1, where both languages > are the D programming language? It's how other languages do things (C#, > php, python, etc.). >
Yea. I'm happy about the D v2.x branch being the official "main" one. But taking the already-heavily-used way to refer to "unspecified version of D / just D in general" and officially changing it to specifically mean the 2.x branch is guaranteed to lead to confusion (and likely alienate D1 fans). I really don't like having terminology change. It's a breaking change.