• sailormoontw (12/12) Jun 21 2006 Hello:
• Lars Ivar Igesund (10/27) Jun 21 2006 I disagree with Chris on the 1.0 part, Sinbad is quite possible to do, j...
• Chris Nicholson-Sauls (8/36) Jun 21 2006 I maintain my stance on needing a 1.0 and the reason is simple: I was co...
• John Reimer (7/13) Jun 21 2006 I completely agree... D is more than capable to handle this task right
• Rémy Mouëza (68/95) Jun 22 2006 D can support a form of multiple inheritance, called "Mixin Inheritance"...
• Stewart Gordon (14/28) Jun 23 2006 If you want to write a D version of Ogre3D, then I for one am not going
• Boris Wang (5/32) Jun 26 2006 In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.
• Tom S (4/5) Jun 26 2006 These are not must-have features for D 1.0
• Boris Wang (3/9) Jun 26 2006 The reference return type , should be must-have feature for D 1.0.
• Daniel Keep (6/25) Jun 27 2006 At some point, you have to say enough is enough, and just make the 1.0
• Boris Wang (4/29) Jun 27 2006 Some feature go into D, may make D not compatible with old version. So t...
• Daniel Keep (12/49) Jun 28 2006 What makes you think we *can't* make non backwards-compatible changes
• Don Clugston (7/51) Jun 26 2006 The problem is, you cannot develop a stable 1.0 library until you have a...
• Bruno Medeiros (12/27) Jun 27 2006 Indeed so. And I think this is very relevant to D's development process
• Don Clugston (13/39) Jun 27 2006 The new syntax introduced in 0.161 is a case in point. It makes

sailormoontw <sailormoontw_member pathlink.com> writes:

Hello:

I have read the Sinbad forum, which it's a Ogre3D in D. The author thinks with
no 1.0 spec, it discourages them from making such a project. Ogre3D is nice and
currently is one of good free DirectX wrappers. If Ogre3D can have
the D version. I think it's a nice thing to the D community.

And...I am just curious, after 5 years, when will the 1.0 of D be out?? Squirrel
is a 2 years old language, and it already hits 2.1. And we remember Perl, Perl
has their spec fixed fast in earlier version while Perl 6 is a bit slow.

I am not sure what is left in the version 1.0, but like an ordinary project it
should have some timeline, or something left to do. 5 years aren't short, and to
tell the truth I have a feeling that other languages would catch up by learning
the merits of D, while D seems not final yet without a formal 1.0 version.

Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:

sailormoontw wrote:

 Hello:
 
 I have read the Sinbad forum, which it's a Ogre3D in D. The author thinks
 with no 1.0 spec, it discourages them from making such a project. Ogre3D
 is nice and currently is one of good free DirectX wrappers. If Ogre3D can
 have the D version. I think it's a nice thing to the D community.
 
 And...I am just curious, after 5 years, when will the 1.0 of D be out??
 Squirrel is a 2 years old language, and it already hits 2.1. And we
 remember Perl, Perl has their spec fixed fast in earlier version while
 Perl 6 is a bit slow.
 
 I am not sure what is left in the version 1.0, but like an ordinary
 project it should have some timeline, or something left to do. 5 years
 aren't short, and to tell the truth I have a feeling that other languages
 would catch up by learning the merits of D, while D seems not final yet
 without a formal 1.0 version.

I disagree with Chris on the 1.0 part, Sinbad is quite possible to do, just
a lot of work to get a 3D engine that is inherently designed with C++ in
mind. I think new 3D engine designs based on what is possible in D, is a
much more worthwhile thing to do, or at least port a engine that don't use
multiple inheritance.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi

Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 sailormoontw wrote:
 
 
Hello:

I have read the Sinbad forum, which it's a Ogre3D in D. The author thinks
with no 1.0 spec, it discourages them from making such a project. Ogre3D
is nice and currently is one of good free DirectX wrappers. If Ogre3D can
have the D version. I think it's a nice thing to the D community.

And...I am just curious, after 5 years, when will the 1.0 of D be out??
Squirrel is a 2 years old language, and it already hits 2.1. And we
remember Perl, Perl has their spec fixed fast in earlier version while
Perl 6 is a bit slow.

I am not sure what is left in the version 1.0, but like an ordinary
project it should have some timeline, or something left to do. 5 years
aren't short, and to tell the truth I have a feeling that other languages
would catch up by learning the merits of D, while D seems not final yet
without a formal 1.0 version.

 
 
 I disagree with Chris on the 1.0 part, Sinbad is quite possible to do, just
 a lot of work to get a 3D engine that is inherently designed with C++ in
 mind. I think new 3D engine designs based on what is possible in D, is a
 much more worthwhile thing to do, or at least port a engine that don't use
 multiple inheritance.
 

I maintain my stance on needing a 1.0 and the reason is simple: I was
constantly 
rethinking my ideas regarding Sinbad because of New Feature X and all the nifty 
improvements it offered.  Although honestly, I'm starting to think the Sinbad
project 
being a direct port of Ogre is a bad idea, and it should be a fresh
from-scratch engine 
designed "in the spirit of" Ogre.  Unfortunately, I haven't the time nor the
gumption to 
pull that heavy of a task off...  Its sad, really.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:

 I disagree with Chris on the 1.0 part, Sinbad is quite possible to do, just
 a lot of work to get a 3D engine that is inherently designed with C++ in
 mind. I think new 3D engine designs based on what is possible in D, is a
 much more worthwhile thing to do, or at least port a engine that don't use
 multiple inheritance.
 

I completely agree... D is more than capable to handle this task right 
now.  It's just really comes down to people having the time and 
resources to attempt such a large task.

But Ogre done using D style, syntax, and features would be a very 
capable library and quite possibly could eclipse the original C++ version.

-JJR

Rémy Mouëza <ray.jay.ay.moueza gmail.com> writes:

In article <e7c3hj$gf1$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Lars Ivar Igesund says...
sailormoontw wrote:

 Hello:
 
 I have read the Sinbad forum, which it's a Ogre3D in D. The author thinks
 with no 1.0 spec, it discourages them from making such a project. Ogre3D
 is nice and currently is one of good free DirectX wrappers. If Ogre3D can
 have the D version. I think it's a nice thing to the D community.
 
 And...I am just curious, after 5 years, when will the 1.0 of D be out??
 Squirrel is a 2 years old language, and it already hits 2.1. And we
 remember Perl, Perl has their spec fixed fast in earlier version while
 Perl 6 is a bit slow.
 
 I am not sure what is left in the version 1.0, but like an ordinary
 project it should have some timeline, or something left to do. 5 years
 aren't short, and to tell the truth I have a feeling that other languages
 would catch up by learning the merits of D, while D seems not final yet
 without a formal 1.0 version.

I disagree with Chris on the 1.0 part, Sinbad is quite possible to do, just
a lot of work to get a 3D engine that is inherently designed with C++ in
mind. I think new 3D engine designs based on what is possible in D, is a
much more worthwhile thing to do, or at least port a engine that don't use
multiple inheritance.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi

D can support a form of multiple inheritance, called "Mixin Inheritance". D's
mixins seems sometimes closer to traits than mixins used in Smalltalk.

























































ray Moonraker:~/dee/tmp$ ./minheritance
super message : Hello World !

It fakes multiple inheritance by creating parameterized subtypes, called mixins.
Then we instanciates an object of a "multiple" inherited class by selecting the
right inheritance order : C inherits from B wich inherits from A ( wich inherits
from the root of the Hierarchy ).

Thus, we can consider that porting an engine that uses multiple inheritance is
possible in theory. 

I would like to see some little syntactic sugar, for mixin class : 

That would be a shortcurt for :





A 1.0 step would allow us not to dream too much about a specific feature that
won't come before the 2.0 release.

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

sailormoontw wrote:
 Hello:
 
 I have read the Sinbad forum, which it's a Ogre3D in D. The author 
 thinks with no 1.0 spec, it discourages them from making such a 
 project. Ogre3D is nice and currently is one of good free DirectX 
 wrappers. If Ogre3D can have the D version. I think it's a nice thing 
 to the D community.

If you want to write a D version of Ogre3D, then I for one am not going
to stop you.

 And...I am just curious, after 5 years, when will the 1.0 of D be 
 out??

I think we should cross this bridge when we get to it.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/35929.html

 Squirrel is a 2 years old language, and it already hits 2.1. And we 
 remember Perl, Perl has their spec fixed fast in earlier version 
 while Perl 6 is a bit slow.

It's not just age.

- How complex is the product?
- How many people have control over the specification?
- How many people have control over the reference implementation?
- How many hours a week are these people working on it?
- Does the version numbering system make sense when compared with ours?

 I am not sure what is left in the version 1.0, but like an ordinary 
 project it should have some timeline, or something left to do.

<snip>

Lots of things left to do if you haven't noticed.

Stewart.

"Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:

In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.

The D is far from the 1.0 mile stone.

It's good time for us to have a rest, may be one years, two years...,  :(

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> 
??????:e7h24l$5p6$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 sailormoontw wrote:
 Hello:

 I have read the Sinbad forum, which it's a Ogre3D in D. The author thinks 
 with no 1.0 spec, it discourages them from making such a project. Ogre3D 
 is nice and currently is one of good free DirectX wrappers. If Ogre3D can 
 have the D version. I think it's a nice thing to the D community.

 If you want to write a D version of Ogre3D, then I for one am not going
 to stop you.

 And...I am just curious, after 5 years, when will the 1.0 of D be out??

 I think we should cross this bridge when we get to it.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/35929.html

 Squirrel is a 2 years old language, and it already hits 2.1. And we 
 remember Perl, Perl has their spec fixed fast in earlier version while 
 Perl 6 is a bit slow.

 It's not just age.

 - How complex is the product?
 - How many people have control over the specification?
 - How many people have control over the reference implementation?
 - How many hours a week are these people working on it?
 - Does the version numbering system make sense when compared with ours?

 I am not sure what is left in the version 1.0, but like an ordinary 
 project it should have some timeline, or something left to do.

 <snip>

 Lots of things left to do if you haven't noticed.

 Stewart.
 

Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:
 In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.

These are not must-have features for D 1.0



-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

"Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:

The reference return type , should be must-have feature for D 1.0.

"Tom S" <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> 
??????:e7oc3h$261t$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.

 These are not must-have features for D 1.0



 -- 
 Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
 

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.list gmail.com> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:
 The reference return type , should be must-have feature for D 1.0.
 
 "Tom S" <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> 
 ??????:e7oc3h$261t$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Boris Wang wrote:

In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.

These are not must-have features for D 1.0



-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

 
 
 

At some point, you have to say enough is enough, and just make the 1.0 
release.  Will I be upset if those features don't get into 1.0?  Not 
really.  After all, the language will continue to evolve after the 1.0 
milestone.

     -- Daniel

"Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:

Some feature go into D, may make D not compatible with old version. So these 
features need go into before 1.0.


"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.list gmail.com> 
??????:e7qm4a$ugt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 The reference return type , should be must-have feature for D 1.0.

 "Tom S" <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> 
 ??????:e7oc3h$261t$1 digitaldaemon.com...

Boris Wang wrote:

In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.

These are not must-have features for D 1.0



-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/


 At some point, you have to say enough is enough, and just make the 1.0 
 release.  Will I be upset if those features don't get into 1.0?  Not 
 really.  After all, the language will continue to evolve after the 1.0 
 milestone.

     -- Daniel 

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.list gmail.com> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:
 Some feature go into D, may make D not compatible with old version. So these 
 features need go into before 1.0.

What makes you think we *can't* make non backwards-compatible changes 
after 1.0?  Take a look at Python: they're currently in the middle of 
making a backwards-incompatible change to the way imports work?

Is it the end of the world?  Is there going to be mass riots from Python 
users?  No, because it's an *improvement*.  Does code need to be 
rewritten?  No: just keep using the old Python interpreter.

There are things I'd like to see in the language, but I'm quite content 
to wait until after 1.0.  I think it's far, FAR more important to get 
the compiler stable, bug-free, and have a concrete spec soon than 
developing an acute case of feature-creep.

	-- Daniel

 "Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.list gmail.com> 
 ??????:e7qm4a$ugt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Boris Wang wrote:

The reference return type , should be must-have feature for D 1.0.

"Tom S" <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> 
??????:e7oc3h$261t$1 digitaldaemon.com...


Boris Wang wrote:


In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.

These are not must-have features for D 1.0



-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/


At some point, you have to say enough is enough, and just make the 1.0 
release.  Will I be upset if those features don't get into 1.0?  Not 
really.  After all, the language will continue to evolve after the 1.0 
milestone.

    -- Daniel 

 
 
 

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:
 In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.
 
 The D is far from the 1.0 mile stone.
 
 It's good time for us to have a rest, may be one years, two years...,  :(

The problem is, you cannot develop a stable 1.0 library until you have a 
  stable 1.0 language. (Important example: template container classes 
can't be standardised until we know how good the implicit function 
template instantiation will be by 1.0).
Secondly, features such as array literals, variable template parameters, 
etc, have been stated to be a post-1.0 feature.


 
 "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> 
 ??????:e7h24l$5p6$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 sailormoontw wrote:
 Hello:

 I have read the Sinbad forum, which it's a Ogre3D in D. The author thinks 
 with no 1.0 spec, it discourages them from making such a project. Ogre3D 
 is nice and currently is one of good free DirectX wrappers. If Ogre3D can 
 have the D version. I think it's a nice thing to the D community.

 If you want to write a D version of Ogre3D, then I for one am not going
 to stop you.

 And...I am just curious, after 5 years, when will the 1.0 of D be out??

 I think we should cross this bridge when we get to it.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/35929.html

 Squirrel is a 2 years old language, and it already hits 2.1. And we 
 remember Perl, Perl has their spec fixed fast in earlier version while 
 Perl 6 is a bit slow.

 It's not just age.

 - How complex is the product?
 - How many people have control over the specification?
 - How many people have control over the reference implementation?
 - How many hours a week are these people working on it?
 - Does the version numbering system make sense when compared with ours?

 I am not sure what is left in the version 1.0, but like an ordinary 
 project it should have some timeline, or something left to do.

 <snip>

 Lots of things left to do if you haven't noticed.

 Stewart.

 
 

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 Boris Wang wrote:
 In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.

 The D is far from the 1.0 mile stone.

 It's good time for us to have a rest, may be one years, two years...,  :(

 
 The problem is, you cannot develop a stable 1.0 library until you have a 
  stable 1.0 language. (Important example: template container classes 
 can't be standardised until we know how good the implicit function 
 template instantiation will be by 1.0).
 Secondly, features such as array literals, variable template parameters, 
 etc, have been stated to be a post-1.0 feature.
 
 

Indeed so. And I think this is very relevant to D's development process 
because it indicates that early Phobos/library development may not be as 
productive as late development, because with early development, more 
things may have to be changed afterwards. Perhaps this is the reason why 
Phobos is less mature that the rest of the toolchain(the compiler)?
Note, I'm not saying early Phobos development is never worthwhile, (that 
would likely depend on each particular case), I'm just pointing out too 
this general consideration.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 Boris Wang wrote:
 In addition, reference return type, variable template parameter, etc.

 The D is far from the 1.0 mile stone.

 It's good time for us to have a rest, may be one years, two 
 years...,  :(

 The problem is, you cannot develop a stable 1.0 library until you have 
 a  stable 1.0 language. (Important example: template container classes 
 can't be standardised until we know how good the implicit function 
 template instantiation will be by 1.0).
 Secondly, features such as array literals, variable template 
 parameters, etc, have been stated to be a post-1.0 feature.

 
 Indeed so. And I think this is very relevant to D's development process 
 because it indicates that early Phobos/library development may not be as 
 productive as late development, because with early development, more 
 things may have to be changed afterwards. 

The new syntax introduced in 0.161 is a case in point. It makes 
delegate-based interfaces far more attractive. AFAIK, none of us had any 
idea it was coming.

Perhaps this is the reason why
 Phobos is less mature that the rest of the toolchain(the compiler)?
 Note, I'm not saying early Phobos development is never worthwhile, (that 
 would likely depend on each particular case), I'm just pointing out too 
 this general consideration.

It's definitely a contributing factor. Still, I think the main reason is 
that the entire D community combined is barely as productive as one Walter.
Large parts of the language are almost fully mature, and I've 
concentrated my effort on those (compile-time metaprogramming, 
numerics). But it doesn't make sense to work on something like DTL which 
is guaranteed to become horribly obsolete quickly.

I wonder if we could have a partial 1.0 spec? Eg, declare a feature 
freeze on certain parts of the language, and gradually lock more of it down.