On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
> I realize that there are people who want to continue using D as it is, but those people may continue to use D2. Putting the breaking changes in a separate branch ensures that DM won't lose current clients as they can just continue using D2 as they are. Even after D3 is stabilized, D2 could have continued support until nobody wants it.
>

sorry, i was overreading those lines of yours

On 6/11/17 5:14 AM, Cym13 wrote:
> Building on that: 82% of patches for Mozilla Firefox are accepted at first sight.

Thanks for referring the paper, I'll read it on the plane. Facebook's rate would be probably comparable. An important detail: is that the rate for internal developers or public contributors? Couldn't get a definitive answer by skimming the paper. -- Andrei

On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 12:22:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/11/17 5:14 AM, Cym13 wrote:
>> Building on that: 82% of patches for Mozilla Firefox are accepted at first sight.
>
> Thanks for referring the paper, I'll read it on the plane. Facebook's rate would be probably comparable. An important detail: is that the rate for internal developers or public contributors? Couldn't get a definitive answer by skimming the paper. -- Andrei

I'm not certain either. For Webkit they took all patches without discriminating by origin so I think they did the same for Firefox. The development plateform is public so it would be more work to filter commits, therefore I don't think they did.

On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 12:22:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/11/17 5:14 AM, Cym13 wrote:
>> Building on that: 82% of patches for Mozilla Firefox are accepted at first sight.
>
> Thanks for referring the paper, I'll read it on the plane. Facebook's rate would be probably comparable. An important detail: is that the rate for internal developers or public contributors? Couldn't get a definitive answer by skimming the paper. -- Andrei

Found it: the paper I linked focuses more on webkit, the case of firefox is detailed in a previous paper [1]. They did choose to focus on core developers defining them as having proposed 100+ patches. This point of the methodology is explained in more details in section IV of the paper.

[1]: https://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~migod/papers/2012/wcre12-olgaAlexReid.pdf

On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 05:24:25 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> and D1.5 too. sure it should be forked from D2, and then it should be made *smaller*. which, essentially, makes it D1.5, not D3. besides, it will be very fun explaining people that we

D--?

Out of curiosity; wouldn't it be better to start with one of the alternative compilers that are being worked on (SDC or others), or are they no longer active?

Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

> On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 05:24:25 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> and D1.5 too. sure it should be forked from D2, and then it should be made *smaller*. which, essentially, makes it D1.5, not D3. besides, it will be very fun explaining people that we
>
> D--?
>
> Out of curiosity; wouldn't it be better to start with one of the alternative compilers that are being worked on (SDC or others), or are they no longer active?

to remove features, it is nice to *have* those features first. and there are no other feature-complete frontends besides dmdfe.

Guillaume Piolat wrote:

> On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
>> I realize that there are people who want to continue using D as it is, but those people may continue to use D2.
>
> 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.

Mike B Johnson wrote:

> On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 06:14:43 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> Mike B Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, sounds good, because to make progress, progress has to be made. Most people are very shortsighted and live in a fear based mentality. Mention any type of change and they nearly shit themselves and never actually think about the consequence of those changes. They just assume it means change and it's something they can't handle.
>>>
>>> Having an "experimental" D allows those crazy and potentially "mind altering" advancements to be worked on, advanced, and polished. It takes time for ideas to grow(because, ultimately, it involves learning and learning takes time).
>>
>> yeah. this is exactly the mentality i want to fight with. in my opition, having such forum "officially blessed" will encourage people to experiment. or at least i hope so. ;-)
>
> It's an uphill battle. You are fighting human nature/evolution/ignorance ;/ The good news is that humans are good at mountain climbing when they want to be.

yeah. i don't have enough energy to keep a *real* fight going, but i at least poping up with my "experimental forum" idea from time to time. i'm in no hurry, and i'm sure that slow, but constant efforts will won the battle. 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years... as i said, i'm in no hurry at all. ;-)

On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
> D is a language with much promise, but it still has many problems that prevent it from being the great replacement for C++ that it was always meant to be.
>
> There have been many changes suggested over time to improve the language, but they were rejected as they would inevitably cause breaking changes.  I think that breaking changes are something to be careful about, and they can definitely be a nuisance to adapt to.  But they must happen once in a while for things to advance.
>
> I think it's about time for D3 to start developing.  So many suggestions for language changes have accumulated by now so I think that it's time to introduce to introduce the next wave of breaking changes.
> It's nice to see that there's a wiki page that documents the history of suggested language changes. I applaud the organization.
> https://wiki.dlang.org/Language_design_discussions
>
> I realize that there are people who want to continue using D as it is, but those people may continue to use D2. Putting the breaking changes in a separate branch ensures that DM won't lose current clients as they can just continue using D2 as they are. Even after D3 is stabilized, D2 could have continued support until nobody wants it.
>
> In Lua (a language with a bigger past and hopefully smaller future than D), breaking changes are introduced in even minor versions.  While I do think that's excessively frequent, there are still users of Lua 5.1.  Making D3 doesn't mean that D2 has to die.
>
> I feel like D3 would see significantly wider adoption than D2 ever got, as long as it successfully solves the problems of D2.
>
> Here are some ways that D3 can be an improvement of D2:
> -Final by default
> -A standard library that is effective with or without garbage collection
>
> Even Andrei has admitted some issues with D when answering this Quora question:
> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why
>
> Even if you don't want to release a D3 too soon, I think it definately makes sense to get started sooner rather than later.
>  D3 should be developed for the same reason that D was first developed; to make a better programming language that learns from the problems of the one before.

I think we just should do those little fixes on D2 (eg. fixing the standard library, DIP45), instead of yet again reinventing the wheel. We have limited resources, I think first and foremost we should port the backend from C to D to further improve our productivity on the main compiler, then bugfixes and implementing non-x86 targets will be much easier.

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