== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article > On 9/4/2011 2:17 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: > I'll again note that I know of know successful operating system or programming > language that goes around breaking existing code unless it is really, really > urgent. > Camel-casing a name doesn't meet that standard. So, yes, I don't like it.
I agree that we've been overzealous lately in breaking code to fix small inconsistencies in style, etc. I think in a lot of cases the answer is permanent (or very long term, i.e. several years) soft deprecation, plus a real soft-deprecated language feature. This will lead to cruft accumulation but in some cases this cruft is less bad than the cruft caused by inconsistent naming conventions/style, etc. To make the docs seem less crufty to people browsing, we could even eventually remove the soft-deprecated functionality from the DDoc documentation so that people reading it can't even see the cruft, and move the code to the bottom of the source files so that people don't see it unless they go looking for it. We could also adopt a policy of zero maintenance for features that have been soft-deprecated for long periods of time, i.e. not even if they produce egregiously wrong results, security holes, etc.
