• Bill Baxter (8/8) Sep 04 2007 I've been meaning to ask...
• Simen Haugen (7/15) Sep 04 2007 And others are dropping 1.0 even before 2.0 is stable...
• Lutger (21/40) Sep 04 2007 But if these features would get in 1.0, the whole stable vs unstable
• Bill Baxter (12/30) Sep 04 2007 Well, I was never one of those advocating that the language needed to
• Dune (4/4) Sep 04 2007 Is there a doc that actually explains the compiler differences between t...
• Jascha Wetzel (3/9) Sep 04 2007 the 2.0 changelog is the most compact list of differences.
• Walter Bright (3/10) Sep 04 2007 There's no way to stuff more features in and call it a stable release.

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

I've been meaning to ask...
Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf will 
be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't on 
D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to port to 
2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or "until it 
is near to release".

--bb

"Simen Haugen" <simen norstat.no> writes:

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fbj50b$2dd2$1 digitalmars.com...
 I've been meaning to ask...
 Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf will 
 be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

 If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't on 
 D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to port to 
 2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or "until it is 
 near to release".

 --bb

And others are dropping 1.0 even before 2.0 is stable...

I started using D when I saw the 1.0 mark, but I wished I had waited... 
Tango vs. Phobos and the fact that 1.0 was not frozen has caused a lot of 
headaches. Now also 1.0 vs. 2.0 is starting to be a problem. Guess it will 
take quite some time before things will get stable.

Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Simen Haugen wrote:
 "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
 news:fbj50b$2dd2$1 digitalmars.com...
 I've been meaning to ask...
 Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf will 
 be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

 If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't on 
 D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to port to 
 2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or "until it is 
 near to release".

 --bb


But if these features would get in 1.0, the whole stable vs unstable 
branch would be undone (could just as well merge back), and D will start 
to be all moving target again. We can't live on the bleeding edge and 
have stability at the same time. I'd like to think the future of D 1.xxx 
will be the applications written in it.

 And others are dropping 1.0 even before 2.0 is stable...
 
 I started using D when I saw the 1.0 mark, but I wished I had waited... 
 Tango vs. Phobos and the fact that 1.0 was not frozen has caused a lot of 
 headaches. Now also 1.0 vs. 2.0 is starting to be a problem. Guess it will 
 take quite some time before things will get stable.
 

Probably true, but it also depends on what you expect from a stable 
system and want out of D. Really the fork is what I think D 1.0 should 
have been to begin with, and things have been quite stable since 
compared to before this split. Now the source of instability is not 
changing language features, but lies more in the library landscape.

I don't see 1.0 vs 2.0 as a problem, on the contrary, it is just a 
trade-off that gives you a choice: develop on the bleeding edge or 
program to a language that won't change every couple of weeks / months. 
Before, we had only bleeding edge, with sometimes new or changed 
languages features twice a month! Now you have the choice, it's a good 
thing. With some care, upgrading to 2.0 in the future will not be a big 
problem.

Something similar goes for Phobos / Tango, you have a choice now. 
Although here it also fragments other libraries, which D2.0 doesn't seem 
to do yet, and I hope that will not happen soon.

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Lutger wrote:
 Simen Haugen wrote:
 "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
 news:fbj50b$2dd2$1 digitalmars.com...
 I've been meaning to ask...
 Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf 
 will be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

 If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't 
 on D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to 
 port to 2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or 
 "until it is near to release".

 --bb


 
 But if these features would get in 1.0, the whole stable vs unstable 
 branch would be undone (could just as well merge back), and D will start 
 to be all moving target again. We can't live on the bleeding edge and 
 have stability at the same time. 

Well, I was never one of those advocating that the language needed to 
stop changing.  But I do think a branch that maintains backwards 
compatibility is good.  As long as old code compiles with the new 
compiler it's ok in my book.  I even don't mind some small 
incompatibilities like 'ref' becoming a keyword.  I want to be able to 
use the new features like struct inheritance and macros, even if more 
conservative libraries stay away from them.

But in any event it's probably too much work for Walter to backport such 
features to 1.x anyway.  Would just mean 2.0 would take that much longer 
to reach stability.

--bb

Dune <no spam.com> writes:

Is there a doc that actually explains the compiler differences between the 1.xx
and the 2.xx series?

If so where can I find it?
If not what are the compiler differences between the 1.xx and the 2.xx series?

Thanks 

Jascha Wetzel <"[firstname]" mainia.de> writes:

Dune wrote:
 Is there a doc that actually explains the compiler differences between the
1.xx and the 2.xx series?
 
 If so where can I find it?
 If not what are the compiler differences between the 1.xx and the 2.xx series?
 
 Thanks 

the 2.0 changelog is the most compact list of differences.
you can also compare the docs of 1.0 and 2.0.

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 I've been meaning to ask...
 Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf will 
 be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

Right, that's the point of it! 1.0 will get bug fixes, though.


 If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't on 
 D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to port to 
 2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or "until it 
 is near to release".

There's no way to stuff more features in and call it a stable release.