On 12/10/14 12:53, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
D2 is, for the most part, excellent in this respect, but it could and should be even better. Well-managed, well-documented and well-publicized breaking changes in support of usability and correctness are desirable, not something to be avoided.
I should add here -- I recognize the basic problem that faces any language when you have newcomers (or potential corporate adopters) downloading the latest compiler, downloading some codebase of interest to them, and finding that it doesn't build because of a backwards-incompatible change. Even when that change was 100% justified, you risk being seen as unstable, untrustworthy, etc., and many people are not patient enough to stick around to hear that justification.
Now, that said, I think it's helpful to try and change the conversation from, "Break/don't break" to, "What would be the circumstances under which it could be feasible to make these desirable breaking changes?"
The original version of this email had some thoughts on that, but to be honest, I'd rather just ask the question, without making any assumptions about what the answer could or should be.
