• Matthew Nawrocki (3/3) Jan 30 2008 Hello...
• Robert Fraser (2/9) Jan 30 2008 D Version 1.x is standardized.
• Leandro Lucarella (11/17) Jan 30 2008 Yeah, right...
• downs (3/14) Jan 30 2008 What are you expecting, ISO certified D?
• Bruce Adams (3/19) Jan 31 2008 The trouble with standards is there's so many to choose from.
• Leandro Lucarella (11/27) Jan 31 2008 I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar is
• downs (3/8) Jan 31 2008 I don't know about that. I'll have to consult the Standard Standard. :)
• BCS (8/12) Jan 31 2008 Well if that is a standard, then lets NOT standardize D!!
• Sean Kelly (10/23) Jan 31 2008 To be fair, a standard represents some sort of agreement among people,
• Don Clugston (6/31) Feb 01 2008 Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reache...
• Jason House (2/7) Feb 01 2008 Maybe then it'll be time for D3 ;)
• Bruce Adams (11/20) Feb 01 2008 Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concens...
• Sean Kelly (7/25) Feb 01 2008 I won't say that design by committee is fast, but a considerable amount
• Walter Bright (6/11) Feb 01 2008 The slowness is driven by a need to develop consensus among a large
• Leandro Lucarella (11/25) Feb 01 2008 You can have consensus in other languages that are not ISO Standard, eve...
• JMNorris (4/8) Feb 03 2008 Maybe they're hoping to finish in time to have a C++0x10? If so, they m...
• Robert Fraser (2/12) Feb 03 2008 2016...?
• Sean Kelly (6/16) Feb 03 2008 I think they're still working on a pre-2010 timeframe, but they had to
• Walter Bright (4/10) Feb 01 2008 D1 is complete as far as I'm concerned, except for bug fixes and changes...
• BCS (2/16) Feb 02 2008 at this reate it should be D-07 and D-08 :) keep up the good work.
• Don Clugston (11/23) Feb 04 2008 Will that include most of the things in the conference paper? Or will it...
• Jarrett Billingsley (3/13) Jan 30 2008 In fact it was standardized well over a year ago.
• Daniel Lewis (7/19) Feb 03 2008 Mmm. Looking forward to it. I think the real challenge in terms of sol...

Matthew Nawrocki <matthew.nawrocki gmail.com> writes:

Hello...

  I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever
happen in the near future?



Matt

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Matthew Nawrocki wrote:
 Hello...
 
   I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever
happen in the near future?
 
 
 
 Matt

D Version 1.x is standardized.

Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:

Robert Fraser, el 30 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:
 Matthew Nawrocki wrote:
Hello...
  I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever
happen in the near future?
Matt

 
 D Version 1.x is standardized.

Yeah, right...

By the Walter Bright Standard Commitee?

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
He used to do surgery
On girls in the eighties
But gravity always wins 

downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Robert Fraser, el 30 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:
 Matthew Nawrocki wrote:
 Hello...
  I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever
happen in the near future?
 Matt

 D Version 1.x is standardized.

 
 Yeah, right...
 
 By the Walter Bright Standard Commitee?
 

What are you expecting, ISO certified D?

Walter is the author, he gets to set the standard. That's how it works. :)

"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:25:28 -0000, downs <default_357-line yahoo.de>  
wrote:

 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Robert Fraser, el 30 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:
 Matthew Nawrocki wrote:
 Hello...
  I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will  
 this ever happen in the near future?
 Matt

 D Version 1.x is standardized.

 Yeah, right...

 By the Walter Bright Standard Commitee?

 What are you expecting, ISO certified D?

 Walter is the author, he gets to set the standard. That's how it works.  
 :)

The trouble with standards is there's so many to choose from.

Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:

downs, el 31 de enero a las 04:25 me escribiste:
 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 Robert Fraser, el 30 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:
 Matthew Nawrocki wrote:
 Hello...
  I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever
happen in the near future?
 Matt

 D Version 1.x is standardized.

 
 Yeah, right...
 
 By the Walter Bright Standard Commitee?
 

 
 What are you expecting, ISO certified D?
 
 Walter is the author, he gets to set the standard. That's how it works. :)

I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar is
predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss and
desitions are taken by more than one only person.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you do not change your beliefs
Your life will always be like this

downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> writes:

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 
 I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar is
 predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss and
 desitions are taken by more than one only person.
 

I don't know about that. I'll have to consult the Standard Standard. :)

 --downs

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 
 I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar
 is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss
 and desitions are taken by more than one only person.
 

Well if that is a standard, then lets NOT standardize D!!

The parts of a "standard" I have any use for is the part that lets you use 
it. I don't give a ___ how it's made (D seems to do well with King Walter) 
just what it says. IIRC in mechanical systems, standards are things like 
"threads are this shape" not the people that define them (that is a standard 
committee or organization).

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
 
 I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar
 is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss
 and desitions are taken by more than one only person.

 
 Well if that is a standard, then lets NOT standardize D!!
 
 The parts of a "standard" I have any use for is the part that lets you
 use it. I don't give a ___ how it's made (D seems to do well with King
 Walter) just what it says. IIRC in mechanical systems, standards are
 things like "threads are this shape" not the people that define them
 (that is a standard committee or organization).

To be fair, a standard represents some sort of agreement among people,
typically about a design.  And the usefulness of a standard is directly
tied to how many people agree about that design--the most common way of
reaching a consensus being a committee.  So the D language is 'standard'
insofar as that we have all agreed to follow the design.  The situation
is a bit unstable in that it relies on the receptiveness and the talents
of one individual (ie. Walter), but fortunately he has proven himself up
to the task so far.


Sean

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

Sean Kelly wrote:
 BCS wrote:
 Leandro Lucarella wrote:

 I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar
 is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss
 and desitions are taken by more than one only person.

 Well if that is a standard, then lets NOT standardize D!!

 The parts of a "standard" I have any use for is the part that lets you
 use it. I don't give a ___ how it's made (D seems to do well with King
 Walter) just what it says. IIRC in mechanical systems, standards are
 things like "threads are this shape" not the people that define them
 (that is a standard committee or organization).

 
 To be fair, a standard represents some sort of agreement among people,
 typically about a design.  And the usefulness of a standard is directly
 tied to how many people agree about that design--the most common way of
 reaching a consensus being a committee.  So the D language is 'standard'
 insofar as that we have all agreed to follow the design.  The situation
 is a bit unstable in that it relies on the receptiveness and the talents
 of one individual (ie. Walter), but fortunately he has proven himself up
 to the task so far.
 
 
 Sean

Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a 
consensus with himself. <g>
Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases 
before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.

Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:

Don Clugston Wrote:
 Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a 
 consensus with himself. <g>
 Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
 So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases 
 before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.

Maybe then it'll be time for D3 ;)

"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:22:30 -0000, Jason House  
<jason.james.house gmail.com> wrote:

 Don Clugston Wrote:
 Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't  
 reached a
 consensus with himself. <g>
 Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
 So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of  
 releases
 before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.

 Maybe then it'll be time for D3 ;)

Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concensus.
Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't put a definite  
year
to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.

If I may quote the fictional genius Prof. Adonis Cnut

Dr Hannah Awkward: "The human genome project took over a decade of work by  
hundreds
of scientists around the world".

Prof Adonis Cnut: "but I was working on my own so it was much quicker"

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Bruce Adams wrote:
 On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:22:30 -0000, Jason House
 <jason.james.house gmail.com> wrote:
 
 Don Clugston Wrote:
 Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't
 reached a
 consensus with himself. <g>
 Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
 So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of
 releases
 before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.

 Maybe then it'll be time for D3 ;)

 
 Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concensus.
 Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't put a definite
 year
 to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.

I won't say that design by committee is fast, but a considerable amount
of the slowness for C++ is related to the process required by the
standards body itself.  I think the process was really designed with
mechanical and electrical engineering in mind, rather than the quickly
changing software field.


Sean

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 I won't say that design by committee is fast, but a considerable amount
 of the slowness for C++ is related to the process required by the
 standards body itself.  I think the process was really designed with
 mechanical and electrical engineering in mind, rather than the quickly
 changing software field.

The slowness is driven by a need to develop consensus among a large 
group of people, and to leave a heavily documented trail. This process 
is not inherent to the procedures of the standards body, the process is 
inherent in design by committee, and is merely reflected in the formal 
procedures.

Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:

Bruce Adams, el  1 de febrero a las 19:00 me escribiste:
 On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:22:30 -0000, Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com>
wrote:
 
Don Clugston Wrote:
Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a
consensus with himself. <g>
Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases
before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.

Maybe then it'll be time for D3 ;)

 
 Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concensus.
 Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't put a definite year
 to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.

You can have consensus in other languages that are not ISO Standard, even
when they have their BDFL is there a lot more discussion and a more formal
process, which means predictability.

And yes, I'm talking about Python as an example :)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Damian_Des> Me anDa MaL eL CaPSLoCK

JMNorris <nospam nospam.com> writes:

"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in
news:op.t5u0eef7xikks4 starquake.cybernetics: 

 Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is
 concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't
 put a definite  year
 to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.

Maybe they're hoping to finish in time to have a C++0x10?  If so, they may 
not make it. :-)

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

JMNorris wrote:
 "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in
 news:op.t5u0eef7xikks4 starquake.cybernetics: 
 
 Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is
 concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't
 put a definite  year
 to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.

 
 Maybe they're hoping to finish in time to have a C++0x10?  If so, they may 
 not make it. :-)

2016...?

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

JMNorris wrote:
 "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in
 news:op.t5u0eef7xikks4 starquake.cybernetics: 
 
 Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is
 concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't
 put a definite  year
 to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.

 
 Maybe they're hoping to finish in time to have a C++0x10?  If so, they may 
 not make it. :-)

I think they're still working on a pre-2010 timeframe, but they had to
cut a bunch of stuff to make it.  I believe the standardization process
they work with requires about a year of voting and such to finalize
things, so they've actually got to be done fairly soon.


Sean

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't 
 reached a consensus with himself. <g>
 Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
 So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of 
 releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially 
 complete.

D1 is complete as far as I'm concerned, except for bug fixes and changes 
that improve the compiler without changing the spec.

The current plan is for D2 to be finalized sometime in the fall.

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Walter,

 Don Clugston wrote:
 
 Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't
 reached a consensus with himself. <g>
 Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
 So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of
 releases before Walter will say that the language design is
 essentially
 complete.

 D1 is complete as far as I'm concerned, except for bug fixes and
 changes that improve the compiler without changing the spec.
 
 The current plan is for D2 to be finalized sometime in the fall.
 

at this reate it should be D-07 and D-08  :) keep up the good work.

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

Walter Bright wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't 
 reached a consensus with himself. <g>
 Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
 So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of 
 releases before Walter will say that the language design is 
 essentially complete.

 
 D1 is complete as far as I'm concerned, except for bug fixes and changes 
 that improve the compiler without changing the spec.
 
 The current plan is for D2 to be finalized sometime in the fall.

Will that include most of the things in the conference paper? Or will it be
less 
ambitious?

Anyway, it would be good to put this on the 'futures' page on the spec. If the 
D1 futures page simply said something like:

"D1 is complete, except for bug fixes and changes that improve the compiler 
without changing the spec. From April 2007, all language enhancements were made 
to D2".
then you'd never have to change it again. (Up to now, it's been a page with a 
spectacularly poor record of prediction <g>).
And for D2, you could provide a link to the conference paper.

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Robert Fraser" <fraserofthenight gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:fnqun8$9o4$1 digitalmars.com...
 Matthew Nawrocki wrote:
 Hello...

   I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this 
 ever happen in the near future?



 Matt

 D Version 1.x is standardized.

In fact it was standardized well over a year ago. 

Daniel Lewis <murpsoft hotmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright Wrote:

 Don Clugston wrote:
 Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't 
 reached a consensus with himself. <g>
 Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases.
 So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of 
 releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially 
 complete.

 
 D1 is complete as far as I'm concerned, except for bug fixes and changes 
 that improve the compiler without changing the spec.
 
 The current plan is for D2 to be finalized sometime in the fall.

Mmm.  Looking forward to it.  I think the real challenge in terms of
solidifying D 2.x is the correct/terse const declaration problem, and providing
access to the AST during compile-time.

The latter will allow people to write their own compiler back-ends for anything
they can stuff in a template.

PS: Walnut is very shortly going to be porting to FASM because the 77kb of
bloat and difficulty binding identifiers and function parameters to SSE2
registers really does matter for my project.

The FASM forum guys are voting that I can get the Walnut interpreter under 50kb.

Regards,
Dan