On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 04:00 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > […] > > In any case, I expect that anyone who wants D3 is going to have a > very hard > time convincing Walter and Andrei that such large breaking changes > would be > worth it at this point.
I am happy to accept now is not the time, but to say there will be no D3 is probably as bad a position as to say D3 tomorrow please, and D4 the next day. Of course the Linux numbering 3 → 4 was fatuous, no architectural or serious breaking change, just a though that the minor number was getting too big. So having D2.999 is fine per se, but advertises a lack of change and a lack of ambition since the language name is D not D2. Fortran, C++, and Java show an obsessive adherence to backward compatibility and yet they increase their major numbers to give the appearance at least of forward progress. There is a balance to be had, but I believe keeping D3 as a formal agenda item is a positive thing for the traction of D. Perhaps, of course we should be talking about D 2.x and D 3.0 and remove the D1, D2, etc. from the debate. -- Russel. ========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Description: This is a digitally signed message part