>Mr.Matthias!
>Java and C# are 'commercial movements' boasting the 'ideology' of
>'Revolutonizing C/C++ through a true and modern successor' which, infact, is a
>cunning and tempting idea to achieve dominance of the modern computer
>programming world.
>D , on the other hand, is the true and pure Evolution of C/C++ , having the
>objective of serving the programmer world and not enslaving it :D !
>My Salute to Mr.Walter Bright.
>Irfan Hussain Sheikh,
>Pakistan.

IMHO the true and pure evolution of C/c++ is C++/CLI

Uhhh; excuse me? Dave said that, Helmut ~ not I

:-)


"Helmut Leitner" <leitner@hls.via.at> wrote in message news:413D7D1C.EF07F49E@hls.via.at...


antiAlias wrote:
>
> I agree that v1.0 should not be released until the fundemental issues are settled.
>

That was not my point - D may develop any way...
... BUT developments must not break 1.00 code.

Imagine for example an introductory book containing examples that won't run half a year later - a desaster for the author of the book, the frustrated readers and the language.

--
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

In article <chkmi2$2kke$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
>
>In article <chkkpm$2jn9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
>>
>>In article <413D7D1C.EF07F49E@hls.via.at>, Helmut Leitner says...
>>>
>>>That was not my point - D may develop any way...
>>>... BUT developments must not break 1.00 code.
>>>
>>>Imagine for example an introductory book containing examples that won't run half a year later - a desaster for the author of the book, the frustrated readers and the language.
>>
>>Hardily agree.
>>
>>- Dave
>
>Uff da, that should be 'heartily agree' ;)
>
>- Dave
>

Is there an iso for D? If in the near future there would be then I guess it would be safe to start writing books. Huray for books.

In article <413D7D1C.EF07F49E@hls.via.at>, Helmut Leitner says...
>
>antiAlias wrote:
>> 
>> I agree that v1.0 should not be released until the fundemental issues are settled.
>> 
>
>That was not my point - D may develop any way...
>... BUT developments must not break 1.00 code.
>
>Imagine for example an introductory book containing examples that won't run half a year later - a desaster for the author of the book, the frustrated readers and the language.

Sounds like what happened to Java ;)


Sean

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:chjude$2ab3$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >D does have some significant novel ideas, like its approach to utf
strings,
> >how foreach works, mixins, arrays, etc. But it isn't intended to be
loaded
> >with novel ideas, it's a refactoring and refinement of existing and
proven
> >ideas. D is an engineering job, not an academic research project.
> Mixins are just like C-Macros with nicer synthax and less abilities.

From some perspectives, all templates are are glorified macros <g>.

> The way arrays are done isn't realy a "significant novel idea", is it?

One would think so, but looking at how arrays are so badly done in other languages (look at VLA's in C), perhaps it is novel. Sometimes good ideas are obvious only in hindsight.

> Anyway I didn't say anithing negative about D. I just said, that there
anren't
> any revolutionary ideas or anything like that.

I'm agreeing with you! I was just trying to point out the reasons why for those that may think of it as a negative.

"Helmut Leitner" <leitner@hls.via.at> wrote in message news:413D7D1C.EF07F49E@hls.via.at...
> antiAlias wrote:
> > I agree that v1.0 should not be released until the fundemental issues
are
> > settled.
> That was not my point - D may develop any way...
> ... BUT developments must not break 1.00 code.
>
> Imagine for example an introductory book containing examples that won't run half a year later - a desaster for the author of the book, the frustrated readers and the language.

New standards always break existing code - happened with both C standards, and with C++. The argument to change something that does break existing code, however, needs to be very compelling after 1.0. Also, post-1.0 compilers will need to have a 1.0 compatibility mode as much as practical.

antiAlias wrote:
> Uhhh; excuse me? Dave said that, Helmut ~ not I
> 
> :-)

I'm sure it was an accident. ;)

You might be able to adjust your newsreader settings so that the "quote-markers" are added to each line when you reply (like it does for pretty much everyone else). When the extra ">" symbols are missing, quoting the quoter can be especially misleading.

> 
> 
> "Helmut Leitner" <leitner@hls.via.at> wrote in message
> news:413D7D1C.EF07F49E@hls.via.at...
> 
> 
> antiAlias wrote:
> 
>>I agree that v1.0 should not be released until the fundemental issues are
>>settled.
>>
> 
> 
> That was not my point - D may develop any way...
> ... BUT developments must not break 1.00 code.
> 
> Imagine for example an introductory book containing examples
> that won't run half a year later - a desaster for the author
> of the book, the frustrated readers and the language.
> 
> --
> Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
> Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com


-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:chjccc$21j0$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> D does have some significant novel ideas, like its approach to utf
strings,
> how foreach works, mixins, arrays, etc. But it isn't intended to be loaded with novel ideas, it's a refactoring and refinement of existing and proven ideas. D is an engineering job, not an academic research project.

<alert comment="newbie">

Something that was mentioned earlier in a similar post:

Perhaps a great deal of thought should be given to features that could and should be removed. (I suppose The WB and others have already gone through this mental exercise at least several times.)

One of the better programmers that I worked with used to say: "One way to tell if software is nearing completion is if there is nothing left to take out."

Pre ver 1.0 is pretty much the last opportunity to remove rarely used and problematic features. For each capability, does it pass the test of being rock solid and essential?  For the remaining bug-list, would it make sense to simply take out the associated feature altogether, for eventual implementation post 1.0?

This approach might also have the advantage of getting ver 1.0 released sooner. If remaining problems with obscure capability XYZ are holding up release 1.0, then defer XYZ.

Speaking only for myself, I am not particularly concerned about when ver 1.0 becomes available. As of now, it more than meets my limited needs. I suppose if my freeware project depended on the availability of obscure capability XYZ, and it turned out that it wasn't available in ver 1.0, I'd be upset.

</alert>

"Helmut Leitner" <leitner@hls.via.at> wrote in message news:413D7D1C.EF07F49E@hls.via.at...
>
>
> antiAlias wrote:
>>
>> I agree that v1.0 should not be released until the fundemental issues are settled.
>>
>
> That was not my point - D may develop any way...
> ... BUT developments must not break 1.00 code.
>
> Imagine for example an introductory book containing examples that won't run half a year later - a desaster for the author of the book, the frustrated readers and the language.

Indeed!

"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:chkqho$2n80$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <413D7D1C.EF07F49E@hls.via.at>, Helmut Leitner says...
> >
> >antiAlias wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree that v1.0 should not be released until the fundemental issues
are
> >> settled.
> >>
> >
> >That was not my point - D may develop any way...
> >... BUT developments must not break 1.00 code.
> >
> >Imagine for example an introductory book containing examples that won't run half a year later - a desaster for the author of the book, the frustrated readers and the language.
>
> Sounds like what happened to Java ;)
>

If its the same as what happend to Java, then D
is in for a great future. Time(and plenty of it)will tell, I guess.

Phill.