On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 19:34:41 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
> I am a developer who maintains real (commercial!) projects, and I want D to break more compatibility and do less stability. Just, you know, for reference.
Maintaining closed-source commerical projects isn't a problem with changing compiler. Because you only need to support one version at a time. Then, try writing open-source with many users, all of whom use different versions (and vendors) of compiler. Now you're in trouble.
> Also, at the end of the day, language development is not a poll. There are some good arguments for (and against) a D3 split; "look how many posts can get spammed on this thread" is not one of them. Otherwise we should probably go and make private
class scope as well...
D3 split doesn't hurt anyone. I don't know about making private
class scope. If it doesn't hurt people - why not. After all, the "support" of an LTS branch will most likely go towards those interested in that branch, while others can use D3 if they want breaking changes.
Of course it's not a poll, but if issues come up repeatedly, then you have to listen to them. I don't understand how LTS is such a bad idea that everyone is so aggressively against it. It's not like we're stealing your freedom to do whatever, we're proposing (or at least trying to) a solution that theoretically should fulfill both ends needs.
> The thing is that D doesn't have structure enough to get a LTS.
We can only try to always get newest ones because we don't want to deal with old and nasty > bugs.
As someone in this thread pointed out already, LTS doesn't really require a lot of work to begin with. Just fix behavior in-place, with occasional security and segfault patches. At least, a working strategy could be developed according to amount of manpower.
Also, "D doesn't have structure" isn't coming from the nature of things. It has no structure because nobody is giving it structure.
I also find it very amusing how, supposedly, Walter has a final say anyway, but it's always the community's fault for D lacking structure, or manpower, or anything else.
I would've liked to see a negotiation point from the D core team, like: "We can do an LTS branch, if: #list requirments here#". So we can allocate people, assign roles, maybe even raise funds. But I hate it when core devs just show up saying "nah can't be bothered you do it". Because I know, at the end of the day, Walter can just say "no" and all the effort will go down the drain.
I find the whole idea of LTS pointless when the core community isn't interested in working towards that goal. I mean, if the initial author of LTS leaves, what are you stuck with?