On Thursday, 1 March 2018 at 21:49:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
> That being said, I think that it's a given that we need to make breaking changes at least occasionally. The question is more how big they can be and how we go about it. Some changes would clearly be far too large to be worth it, whereas others clearly pay for themselves. The harder question is the stuff in between.
>
> ...
> - Jonathan M Davis

Personally. I think the D1..D2 transistion was great idea.

I think D2..D3 should follow the same principle.

i.e restrict breaking changes to major versions.

People are always able to stay on the major branch that they need - there are no forced upgrades here - you choose which major branch works for you. The source code is all there for you, to do as you please.

This is the only way to evolve - otherwise D will just become another convoluted piece of %3@f!, like C++.

On the otherhand, I wish programming languages would just stop changing so often.

The constant release cycles is just crazy! That's a sure sign that something is not right. And who wants to program in a langauge that is not right??

That's why I still like, still use, and typically still prefer .. C.

Nobody dares change it ;-)

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:39:08AM +0000, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
> On the otherhand, I wish programming languages would just stop changing so often.
[...]

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. :-P

The day a language stops changing is the day it begins to die.


T

-- 
Life is unfair. Ask too much from it, and it may decide you don't deserve what you have now either.

On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 00:53:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:39:08AM +0000, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
>> On the otherhand, I wish programming languages would just stop changing so often.
> [...]
>
> Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. :-P
>
> The day a language stops changing is the day it begins to die.
>
>
> T

C will never die!!!!

!!
!!!!

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:57:22AM +0000, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 00:53:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:39:08AM +0000, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
> > > On the otherhand, I wish programming languages would just stop changing so often.
> > [...]
> > 
> > Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. :-P
> > 
> > The day a language stops changing is the day it begins to die.
[...]
> C will never die!!!!
[...]

Because it has not stopped changing.  To wit:

	K&R C (1978)
	C89 / C90 / ANSI C (1989-1990)
	The 1995 amendment to ANSI C (1995)
	C99 (1999)
	(Embedded C (2008))
	C11 (2011)


T

-- 
"If you're arguing, you're losing." -- Mike Thomas

On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 01:19:53 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> Because it has not stopped changing.  To wit:
>
> 	K&R C (1978)
> 	C89 / C90 / ANSI C (1989-1990)
> 	The 1995 amendment to ANSI C (1995)
> 	C99 (1999)
> 	(Embedded C (2008))
> 	C11 (2011)
>
>
> T

btw. I never said 'stop changing', I said "I wish programming languages would just stop changing so often."

And that last update to C, in 2011, was 7 years ago..

relative stability is a sure sign that something is right.

constant, regular, change is a sure sign that something is wrong.

And if stability were not the preferred state towards which things evolve, then the universe would be a very different place indeed.

On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 02:02:42 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
>
> btw. I never said 'stop changing', I said "I wish programming languages would just stop changing so often."
>

I'd also argue, that languages that are relatively stable, are far 'safer' than languages that constantly change.

So given that the world is so focused on developing  a variety of so called 'safer' languages, with ever rapid, frequent, release cycles, the world would actually be alot 'safer' if everyone went back and programmed in C ;-)

On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 00:39:08 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 March 2018 at 21:49:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>
>> That being said, I think that it's a given that we need to make breaking changes at least occasionally. The question is more how big they can be and how we go about it. Some changes would clearly be far too large to be worth it, whereas others clearly pay for themselves. The harder question is the stuff in between.
>>
>> ...
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> Personally. I think the D1..D2 transistion was great idea.
>
> I think D2..D3 should follow the same principle.

D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was either Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple occasions). A D2 -> D3 transition might generate a lot of publicity if done very carefully, but more than likely it would just put the nails in the coffin for good and destroy all the momentum D has built up over the past 3 years (I feel like 2015 was a big turning point where D finally got back on peoples' radars).

On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 02:34:23 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
> On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 02:02:42 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
>>
>> btw. I never said 'stop changing', I said "I wish programming languages would just stop changing so often."
>>
>
> I'd also argue, that languages that are relatively stable, are far 'safer' than languages that constantly change.
>
> So given that the world is so focused on developing  a variety of so called 'safer' languages, with ever rapid, frequent, release cycles, the world would actually be alot 'safer' if everyone went back and programmed in C ;-)

Sorry little rabbit, your are misguided in this belief. Back in day we all used C and this is the reason most "safer" languages exist today.

On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 02:35:46 UTC, Meta wrote:
>
> D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was either Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple occasions). A D2 -> D3 transition might generate a lot of publicity if done very carefully, but more than likely it would just put the nails in the coffin for good and destroy all the momentum D has built up over the past 3 years (I feel like 2015 was a big turning point where D finally got back on peoples' radars).

I've read a bit about that history, but really, sometimes you have to be agressive with change or just it won't come about.

And I don't see how D2 could have come about without an agressive push for change.

And it's unlikely that D would have died. Some people might have left (and probably did). But D is better because it's D2.

Imagine promoting D1 to the world!

D3 could be even better. (e.g. @safe by default..just for starters).

And I personally think all this ongoing integration with C and C++ is not ideal. It's creating a really complex beast, that has to be maintained indefinitely... by someone.

So I'd like to see D3 dump all the compatibility crap ;-)

On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 03:57:25 UTC, barry.harris wrote:
>
> Sorry little rabbit, your are misguided in this belief. Back in day we all used C and this is the reason most "safer" languages exist today.

You can write pretty safe code in C these days, without too much trouble. We have the tooling and the knowledge to make that happen.. developed over decades - and both keep getting better, because the language is not subjected to a constant and frequent release cycle.

Ironically, the demands on programmers to adapt to constant change, is actually making applications less safe. - and least, that's my thesis ;-)

The real problem with using C these days (in some areas), is more to do with its limited abstraction power, not its lack of safety.

And also C is frowned upon (and C++ too for that matter), cause most programmers are so lazy these days, and don't want to write code - but prefer to just 'link algorithms' that someone else wrote.

I include myself in this - hence my interest in D ;-)

Keep those algorithms coming!