On Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 09:59:37 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 08:40:32 UTC, Andre Pany wrote:
In the whole discussion I miss 2 really important things.
If your product compiles fine with a dmd version, no one
forces you to update to the next dmd version. In the company I
work for, we set for each project the DMD version in the build
settings. The speed of DMD releases or breaking changes
doesn't affect us at all.
If your product is a library then your customers dictate which
dmd version you build with.
Why is this a problem? I have the exact same thought. This is not
an unsolvable problem.
Package managers have solved this ages ago with a min-version
flag.
The compiler can do the same if D is against just embracing the
package manager as the way to do things.
If D has an LTS version and cutting edge then I don't see the
problem:
a) You broke me lib! => Set a min-compilation version flag, or
use LTS (you have both options)
- Qt does this.
- Node does this.
- iOS Foundation even gets rid of crap, and their user base is
HUGE.
- Safari is completely revamping how cookies and storage APIs
work. That's *universal*. Programmers are dealing with it.
Yes their user base is much bigger - so they can survive - is
probably one subjective argument. But then if you have an LTS
then what's the argument?
b) Why you no update D?! => use cutting edge.
The only problem I see is manpower.
Cheers,
- Ali
