Guillaume Piolat wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 17:59:54 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Well, no thanks.
The very same strategy halved the community for D1/D2 split and almost
killed D.
as you can see, D is alive and kicking, and nothing disasterous or fatal
happens.
https://forum.dlang.org/search?q=%22D2%22+destroyed+author%3AWalter+author%3ABright&search=Search
so what? "nearly destroyed" != "destroyed". as i said, D is alive and ok,
nothing fatal happens. backing fear of changes with "last time it almost
destroyed us" won't do any good in the long term: it will ultimately end
with having no changes at all, D will stagnate and die.
changing is a natural thing for evolution, even breaking change. evaluating
was what done wrong/inoptimal, and improving on that it the thing that will
keep D not only alive, but will make it better and better. otherwise,
accumulated legacy will inevitably turn D into another C++, and somebody
will create E (or something ;-). why don't create E outselves, and call it
D3 instead?
