if (DnD > 3.5) {DnD=='sucks'}
I don't know. Every edition has its strengths and weaknesses, but 3.5e was arguably less good than 3e, which in turn fixed a bunch of AD&D 2e's problems but created a whole string of new really bad ones (mostly by removing all caster restrictions while crippling the fighter, ramping up the complexity with feats, and heavy emphasis on the game board), while 2e was just a Bowdlerised version of AD&D 1e, which was in turn Original D&D with all the ambiguity removed for consistent tournament play.
4e was an extremely well crafted game, but it didn't quite have the same feel, losing quite a lot of D&D's flavour. Had 4e been released without the D&D branding, it probably wouldn't have done so well, but people would have appreciated it a lot more. Pathfinder has good flavour, but it pretty much failed to address 3e's real problems. 5e might be really good, but we won't know until we see it.
Besides, any true grognard knows that any D&D beyond the original 1974 edition is a travesty. Seriously, the original edition is spot on (barring the horrendous editing), which is why the retroclones (including those of Basic D&D) are so popular right now.