On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 22:53:44 UTC, ketmar wrote:
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?
E already exists
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(programming_language) +
AmigaE), two things having the same name often doom one of them
into obscurity (see SDLang, which originally was called SDL).
There were already a few changes in the language (use of static
imports instead of directly accessing functions/libraries, etc),
just as we're adding to the language, we can remove rarely used
functions by first making them deprecated, then removing them
altogether as time passes on.
