On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 23:02:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On 12/13/2014 10:55 PM, ddj wrote:
>
>> But so many issues and bug fixes scares me from using it.
>>
>
> That's just the wrong way to look at it. Take a look at the bug list for gcc, any of the Java compilers, or clang. Are you afraid to use them as well?

Maybe, but gcc and java compilers have long history of stable releases and many programs and libraries written. Clang has standards to implement and! static analyzer.

On Sunday, 14 December 2014 at 16:44:09 UTC, ddj wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 23:02:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On 12/13/2014 10:55 PM, ddj wrote:
>>
>>> But so many issues and bug fixes scares me from using it.
>>>
>>
>> That's just the wrong way to look at it. Take a look at the bug list for gcc, any of the Java compilers, or clang. Are you afraid to use them as well?
>
> Maybe, but gcc and java compilers have long history of stable releases and many programs and libraries written. Clang has standards to implement and! static analyzer.

As Mike said, look at the bug tracker history for these projects. Even with all those stable releases there were always lots of open bugs and today in GCC 4.9 there are issues:

http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1407.3/00650.html

We use GCC 4.8 at my work where we develop class II and class III health-care devices - A life support system is class III...how well do you trust GCC? :-).

Joking aside we design for failure and have a 4 year verification process that weeds out critical bugs in our code and the compiler.

Cheers,
uri

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 00:58:29 UTC, uri wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 December 2014 at 16:44:09 UTC, ddj wrote:
>> On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 23:02:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2014 10:55 PM, ddj wrote:
>>>
>>>> But so many issues and bug fixes scares me from using it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's just the wrong way to look at it. Take a look at the bug list for gcc, any of the Java compilers, or clang. Are you afraid to use them as well?
>>
>> Maybe, but gcc and java compilers have long history of stable releases and many programs and libraries written. Clang has standards to implement and! static analyzer.
>
> As Mike said, look at the bug tracker history for these projects. Even with all those stable releases there were always lots of open bugs and today in GCC 4.9 there are issues:
>
> http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1407.3/00650.html
>
> We use GCC 4.8 at my work where we develop class II and class III health-care devices - A life support system is class III...how well do you trust GCC? :-).
>
> Joking aside we design for failure and have a 4 year verification process that weeds out critical bugs in our code and the compiler.
>
> Cheers,
> uri

Aren't you using certified compilers?

It was my understanding that for life support systems only certified compilers are allowed.

..
Paulo

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 00:58:29 UTC, uri wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 December 2014 at 16:44:09 UTC, ddj wrote:
>> On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 23:02:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2014 10:55 PM, ddj wrote:
>>>
>>>> But so many issues and bug fixes scares me from using it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's just the wrong way to look at it. Take a look at the bug list for gcc, any of the Java compilers, or clang. Are you afraid to use them as well?
>>
>> Maybe, but gcc and java compilers have long history of stable releases and many programs and libraries written. Clang has standards to implement and! static analyzer.
>
> As Mike said, look at the bug tracker history for these projects. Even with all those stable releases there were always lots of open bugs and today in GCC 4.9 there are issues:
>
> http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1407.3/00650.html
>
> We use GCC 4.8 at my work where we develop class II and class III health-care devices - A life support system is class III...how well do you trust GCC? :-).
>
> Joking aside we design for failure and have a 4 year verification process that weeds out critical bugs in our code and the compiler.
>
> Cheers,
> uri

Actually, I think OSS too often has poor quality code. New features are continuously and unnecessary added, often breaking "stable" code. With exception of academic projects, I guess.

Long verification process is exactly what I wish to prevent.
While debugging my code, last thing I want to find is compiler bug.

Currently I'm pleased with C# contracts, static checker, nunit, code (and branch!) coverage, pex .. and I wish to repeat that experience with D at higher execution speed. On OSS IDE like Sharp/Mono Develop.

Thanks