Simen Kjaeraas wrote: > Lutger wrote: > >> - these other languages go out of their way to make new releases >> backwards >> compatible, sometimes at great costs. They almost never completely >> succeed >> though. > > And D1 makes an effort to follow the spec, and will not incorporate > breaking changes. D2 is, in many ways, a whole new language. Sure, > you could argue that D1 code should be compilable in D2, but it > would matter no more than the argument that C code should be > compilable in D1. > > -- > Simen
I'm certainly not making that argument. In the talk Andrei and Walter gave at the D conference they mentioned the design goal 'no issue left behind' This is what makes D evolution so much more interesting. Yet it has a price. Looking at C# for comparison, it is about the same age (C is not fair, too old): you can easily upgrade from 2.0 to 3.5 and beyond. Most important part of that ease is the ability to use older libraries in a newer environment. Still, lots of issues in C# are already beyond fixing.
