digitalmars.D - ISO D
- eugene (2/2) Aug 17 2016 Hello, everyone,
- Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d (10/12) Aug 17 2016 The future? Maybe. But it's unlikely to happen soon. As a whole, the
- eugene (3/18) Aug 17 2016 is it probably 5 years for ISO D to happen or more?
- ciechowoj (3/4) Aug 17 2016 On the topic:
- Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d (10/11) Aug 17 2016 I don't think that any of us know where D will be in 5 years. Having an ...
- Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d (18/20) Aug 17 2016 I am not sure this would be a good thing. Given the history of Fortran,
- TencoDK (14/27) Aug 17 2016 I disagree. ISO, or not ISO, D should be standardized/stabilized.
- Dejan Lekic (4/6) Aug 17 2016 You could have used STABLE DMD (v1), right? Assuming that you
- TencoDK (5/12) Aug 17 2016 That make sense. Though, I think, this must be a common
- Chris Wright (16/30) Aug 17 2016 Far from alpha. But it's deprecated, and support for it ended in 2012.
- qznc (2/3) Aug 17 2016 What would be the benefits?
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 08:02:42 eugene via Digitalmars-d wrote:Hello, everyone, will ISO D be in future or not?The future? Maybe. But it's unlikely to happen soon. As a whole, the language is pretty solid, but there are details that still need to be ironed out spec-wise, there are a few cases where features need to be completed or expanded, and we're likely to be adding a feature or two to solve some of the current problems (e.g. Walter is working on adding ref-counting to the language so that less depends on the GC). So, while D's language definition is _far_ more stable than it once was, it's still in enough flux that a standard wouldn't make a lot of sense yet. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 17 2016
On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:48:12 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 08:02:42 eugene via Digitalmars-d wrote:is it probably 5 years for ISO D to happen or more?Hello, everyone, will ISO D be in future or not?The future? Maybe. But it's unlikely to happen soon. As a whole, the language is pretty solid, but there are details that still need to be ironed out spec-wise, there are a few cases where features need to be completed or expanded, and we're likely to be adding a feature or two to solve some of the current problems (e.g. Walter is working on adding ref-counting to the language so that less depends on the GC). So, while D's language definition is _far_ more stable than it once was, it's still in enough flux that a standard wouldn't make a lot of sense yet. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 17 2016
ciechowoj <keepitsimplesirius gmail.com> On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 09:25:38 UTC, eugene wrote:is it probably 5 years for ISO D to happen or more?On the topic: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/wzifwqtytvkqmecbfgqw forum.dlang.org
Aug 17 2016
On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 09:25:38 eugene via Digitalmars-d wrote:is it probably 5 years for ISO D to happen or more?I don't think that any of us know where D will be in 5 years. Having an ISO standard at some point is certainly a possibility, but it's not even clear that it's something that we're going to want. Some languages have ISO standards, some don't, and there are very successful languages in both categories. So, having an ISO standard is a possibility but not a goal, and when we will have one - if ever - is a complete unknown beyond the fact that it's not happening right now. - Jonathan M Davis
Aug 17 2016
On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 08:02 +0000, eugene via Digitalmars-d wrote:Hello, everyone, will ISO D be in future or not?I am not sure this would be a good thing. Given the history of Fortran, C, and C++, avoiding ISO standardization processes =C2=A0would seem to be a good thing for any other programming language. Even the Java process is fairly dreadful. Having a sensible version release programme is more important that a standard, though having a formal language specification in machine readable format is a good idea. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Aug 17 2016
On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:43:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 08:02 +0000, eugene via Digitalmars-d wrote:Hello, everyone, will ISO D be in future or not?I am not sure this would be a good thing. Given the history of Fortran, C, and C++, avoiding ISO standardization processes would seem to be a good thing for any other programming language. Even the Java process is fairly dreadful. Having a sensible version release programme is more important that a standard, though having a formal language specification in machine readable format is a good idea.avoiding ISO standardization processes would seem to be a good thing for any other programming languageI disagree. ISO, or not ISO, D should be standardized/stabilized. I dropped D once about a year ago because the new DMD version has broken backward compatibility. Some libraries have stopped compiling, and it caused a huge mess in dub package manager. I was trying to build Dash engine with dub, spent some days with this package hell, and ended up with removing dub from my PC. As for C++98, it didn't change since 1998, and I'm pretty sure I can compile anything written in C++98 even today. I can't say I love C++, but I like its versioning. C++98, C++11, C++14 seems to be different languages, and nobody's trying to compile C++11 code with C++98 compiler. Regards, Alexey
Aug 17 2016
On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 12:57:59 UTC, TencoDK wrote:I dropped D once about a year ago because the new DMD version has broken backward compatibility. Some libraries have stoppedYou could have used STABLE DMD (v1), right? Assuming that you *intentionally* used the unstable (v2) DMD, I would say it is unfair to complain...
Aug 17 2016
On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 14:19:08 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 12:57:59 UTC, TencoDK wrote:That make sense. Though, I think, this must be a common misunderstanding among newcomers. D1 seems more like "an old, deprecated alpha version with support dropped a long time ago".I dropped D once about a year ago because the new DMD version has broken backward compatibility. Some libraries have stoppedYou could have used STABLE DMD (v1), right? Assuming that you *intentionally* used the unstable (v2) DMD, I would say it is unfair to complain...
Aug 17 2016
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:28:24 +0000, TencoDK wrote:On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 14:19:08 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:Far from alpha. But it's deprecated, and support for it ended in 2012. code.dlang.org shows four projects that support D1. You can't find any information on D1 at dlang.org -- no downloads, changelog, spec, anything. There is no official, simple way to use a library from an old D version. Dub defaults to building everything with the system D compiler. New features and bugfixes provide an incentive to use the latest compiler version. The effect of it is that, if you have a library, it needs to support the most recent D version. If you have the time, you can support parallel branches for several versions of D, but that's laborious, so most people mix library feature development with language change updates. This is true even of incremental updates -- if I want to support a company that standardized on DMD 2.044 as well as the majority who are on DMD 2.070 and higher, that's probably going to mean two branches of development. D1 and D2 even more so.On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 12:57:59 UTC, TencoDK wrote:That make sense. Though, I think, this must be a common misunderstanding among newcomers. D1 seems more like "an old, deprecated alpha version with support dropped a long time ago".I dropped D once about a year ago because the new DMD version has broken backward compatibility. Some libraries have stoppedYou could have used STABLE DMD (v1), right? Assuming that you *intentionally* used the unstable (v2) DMD, I would say it is unfair to complain...
Aug 17 2016
On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:will ISO D be in future or not?What would be the benefits?
Aug 17 2016
On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:47:35 UTC, qznc wrote:On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:unified language standard?will ISO D be in future or not?What would be the benefits?
Aug 17 2016
On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 11:34:01 UTC, eugene wrote:On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:47:35 UTC, qznc wrote:While the spec might not be 100% perfect, it tries to be a unified language standard. After all D already has four different compilers: DMD, LDC, GDC, and SDC. So imho the best thing to do is to improve the "dirty" bits in the spec that have hidden assumptions or aren't clear enough, but that's a steady process which is done without an ISO spec. Besides who do you prefer to have control over the language: the D Foundation or an international company (which you have to keep on your payroll)?On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:unified language standard?will ISO D be in future or not?What would be the benefits?
Aug 17 2016
From: Dicebot <public dicebot.lv> Newsgroups: d,i,g,i,t,a,l,m,a,r,s,.,D Subject: Re: ISO D References: <amplsndnksyowwayrsql forum.dlang.org> <oblnirzfwhnmnsiwgxlr forum.dlang.org> <turwegrkwpjnbzboumsp forum.dlang.org> In-Reply-To: <turwegrkwpjnbzboumsp forum.dlang.org> --8lwc7R8nueGLlflT2JoSsLRv6GOF33F6I Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/17/2016 02:34 PM, eugene wrote:On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:47:35 UTC, qznc wrote:Unified among whom? There is only one feature complete D frontend right now. I'd say that the moment second competing frontend appears would be exactly the proper time to think about formal standartization. --8lwc7R8nueGLlflT2JoSsLRv6GOF33F6I--On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:=20 unified language standard?will ISO D be in future or not?What would be the benefits?
Aug 17 2016
On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 11:34:01 UTC, eugene wrote:On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:47:35 UTC, qznc wrote:As a former Common Lisp user, I have to disagree rather strongly with that idea. IMO the worst thing for Common Lisp is the ANSI standard. You have several issues: - One group argues that the CLHS is all you need. Then you're using a language largely defined in the late 1970's. - There will never be an updated standard due to cost and impossibility of getting compromise on the original standard. - To do anything useful - or at least modern - with the language, you're in the land of non-standard extensions and people telling you to use the standard. Any attempt to modernize the language by getting rid of awful names like 'princ' are quickly beaten down because princ is in the standard. CL is largely a 40-year old language (not since standardization was complete, but since the language itself was defined) and there is little hope that it will be modernized. If D had a base of millions of developers and tens of thousands of commercial users, it would be different. Standardization would be at least as much of a disaster for D as it was for CL. Even C++, which mostly has users because of legacy code and a lot of money on the line, has found it necessary to continually update the language.On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:unified language standard?will ISO D be in future or not?What would be the benefits?
Aug 17 2016