On 2014-09-25 23:23:06 +0000, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d said:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 03:48:11PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 9/25/14, 2:03 PM, eles wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 September 2014 at 14:29:06 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
lack of attention paid to tightening up what we've already got and
deprecating old stuff that no one wants any more. And inconsistency
in how things work in the language.
The feeling that I have is that if D2 does not get a serious cleanup
at this stage, then D3 must follow quickly (and such move will be
unstoppable), otherwise people will fall back to D1 or C++next.
I'm not sharing that feeling at all. From that perspective all
languages are in need of a "serious cleanup". -- Andrei
I mean, enterprises use deprecation cycles with their products all the
time, and we don't hear of customers quitting just because of that. Some
of the more vocal customers will voice their unhappiness, but as long as
you're willing to work with them and allow them sufficient time to
migrate over nicely and phase out the old stuff, they're generally
accepting of the process.
Unless you're Oracle -- in which case you end up with a horrible
amalgamation of poorly thought out features. Features which work in
such narrow cases that they're mostly useless.
-S
