On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:52:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:39:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
Why do you need long term backwards compatibility?
It would be nice for bootstrapping... now that we need dmd to
build dmd, it'd be really annoying if you need to install
version X-3 to compile version X-2 to compile X-1 to finally
compile version X just because of some stdlib instability.
If that is an issue (I am not sure I understand why that scenario
would arise) can't you pick a version of Phobos and make it part
of the distribution, or mark some parts of Phobos stable and
others unstable? I assume such stability issues also are relevant
for commercial projects, not only DMD.
Seems to me that the most important advantage of moving to D is
to attract developers that are unfamiliar with C++, so using
selected parts of Phobos would make it a lot easier and fun for
them to contribute.
I assume refactoring, high quality documentation and perhaps a
tutorial too, of course. Seems to me that lowering the "anxiety
threshold" could be an important move.
