Walter Bright wrote: > Steve Teale wrote: >> This is the sort of answer that will kill D. The guy comes back after >> 2 years, asks a straight question, and get's told "business as usual, >> we're still arguing among ourselves about what it should be". >> >> Maybe Tiobe is right! Lots of others may not even bother to ask. They >> just visit the newsgroup, read a page of it, and conclude "same old, >> same old", and go away. >> >> D should be D, not maybe 1.043, or let's wait a while and see what >> happens with D2. Potential real users hate uncertainty. If they are >> going to commit, then D must do so too. > > What bothers me about this sentiment is that every other mainstream > language undergoes revision, sometimes major ones, but that never seems > to be an excuse for people to not use it. > > For example, C++ is quite in flux with C++0x. > > The only languages that are not undergoing revision are dead ones.
There are some differences though: - other mainstream languages release new compilers and features every couple of years, you do so every couple of months! - these other languages go out of their way to make new releases backwards compatible, sometimes at great costs. They almost never completely succeed though. To be clear, I do think these are good things for D evolution, but most people are wary to invest energy in change. Reflecting back on the commitment to D1, I think this was a good move in two ways: it allowed larger programs and libraries to rely on it and may have freed the way for D2 to incorporate bolder changes.
