clayasaurus wrote:
> The poll is simple.
> 
> Do you think the D compiler is ready to be called 1.0?
<snip>

Definitely not.

http://www.wikiservice.at/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?PendingPeeves

pretty much speaks for itself here.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

David Barrett wrote:

> No, I don't believe it's currently 1.0 in that I wouldn't seriously recommend to my boss that we start using it.
> 
> I do believe it's ready for personal "fun" projects, but I think too much risk surrounds it before I would recommend building a business atop it:
> 
> - I don't know of any significant commercial application successfully written and released in D, and I don't want to be the first.

I guess people haven't really had time to write a commercial-quality application in D.  Or maybe they're waiting for the language to stabilise a bit before committing themselves to it.

<snip>
> - I perceive a lack of interest among the D developer community.  I see lots of started projects, but few completed ones, and little progress in the meantime.

What do you mean by "completed" exactly?  Every project should be continually under development.

> I can only assume *something* turned off these people who gave D a shot, and this increases my perceived risk around D.

Or are you talking about projects that seem to have been abandoned without so much as something suitable to be a 1.0 release?

> Note that no amount of compiler improvement will alleviate my fears. Further note that most of my fears could probably be alleviated through improved documetnation and better organization of what's already out there in a scattered form.
<snip>

Same here.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

clayasaurus wrote:
> The poll is simple.
> 
> Do you think the D compiler is ready to be called 1.0?

No.

Before we do, some of the DMD bugs should be fixed. Then the library should be fixed and polished.

AND THEN the documentation totally rewritten, or better, another set of documentation should be written to complement the current one.

When that's done, we may announce D 1.0.

----------------------------------------

I wish:     (and read my lips here!)

The compiler bugs would be sorted in two bins, right now: those we try (ehh, Walter tries) to fix before 1.0, and those that WILL NOT GET FIXED!!!!!

Every piece of software has bugs known and unknown. That's just life.

From my own experience, I tend to get this obsession when something is "almost perfect": I can't quit polishing it.

Fix the first bin, and freeze DMD. From that day on, Walter could be 100% on the lib. 5 weeks of that, and it would be good enough. Freeze that too, and get the docs polished.

That done, we have a killer 1.0!

(My guess would be at end of Q2.)

Man, even the Linux kernel has bugs. Accepting some for D and knowing when to freeze the compiler, the lib, and the docs -- we just have to. And in that order.

The bugs left in 1.0 should be in the documentation, with proper explanations on when they occur, suggested workarounds -- and, _most_ importantly, some explanation for _each_ on why we chose to leave that one unfixed for 1.0.  !!

This kind of candor will kick the critics [you know where]!
And it will really make D look professional!

---

Oh Bob, sometimes I really wish I were Bob!!!  ;-(

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Brad Anderson wrote:
> 
>>> I do wish Gentoo had an ebuild available though. :(
>>
>>
>> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-163922-highlight-dmd.html
>> Look for the post by Genone
> 
> 
> If you are referring to the missing versioned zipfiles,
> and the licensing, that was fixed a month ago (DMD 0.113)
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46806#c12
> 
> Currently the only problem is the lack of a "make install"
> target in the linux.mak, and of course the missing x86_64...
> 
> --anders

I know the ebuilds are out there, but not included in Portage, because of the licensing.  That was my only point.  If it's fixed, maybe they'll include it so 'emerge dmd' works.

BA

"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d2ftk0$2ppq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The poll is simple.
>
> Do you think the D compiler is ready to be called 1.0?

compiler - yes
phobos - no*
web site - no**

(*) the only complaints I have about phobos is the AA behavior and some
needed Exception/Error refactoring
(**) the community stuff needs updating. A vesion 1.0 will get new people
and the community links will be vital for these folks to get oriented. Also
a more complete spec would help. For example "final" is an attribute but the
only mention of what it does is in the functions.html for decorating a
function member. No other use is mentioned (is it legal or undefined...?)

Brad Anderson wrote:

> I know the ebuilds are out there, but not included in Portage, because of the licensing.  That was my only point.  If it's fixed, maybe they'll include it so 'emerge dmd' works.

There should not be any problem with the ebuild, as far as I can tell:

# edit /etc/make.conf:
PORTDIR_OVERLAY=/usr/local/portage

mkdir -p /usr/local/portage/dev-lang/dmd
cd /usr/local/portage/dev-lang/dmd


wget -N -O dmd-0.119.ebuild \
http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=52307&action=view

ebuild dmd-0.119.ebuild fetch
ebuild dmd-0.119.ebuild digest


ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge dmd
>>> dev-lang/dmd-0.119 merged.

--anders

"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote in message news:d2h6a0$193m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> (**) the community stuff needs updating. A vesion 1.0 will get new people and the community links will be vital for these folks to get oriented.
Also
> a more complete spec would help. For example "final" is an attribute but
the
> only mention of what it does is in the functions.html for decorating a function member. No other use is mentioned (is it legal or undefined...?)

It's a big help to me when people use the wiki links at the bottom of each page to provide specific feedback. When I update a page, it's easy to click on the wiki link and incorporate the suggestions.

Agreed 100% here.  I've pushed for Ares in the past, ( though admittedly i still haven't _tried_ it , but I will! ) this time I want to sit back and see what happens w/respect to phobos.

Another thing, does anyone know who owns : http://www.minddrome.com/produtos/d/ : , when I search for D Programming Language on google this is the second result , and all the information is grossly out of date.

Charlie


"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle@mathworks.com> wrote in message news:d2h6a0$193m$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "clayasaurus" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d2ftk0$2ppq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > The poll is simple.
> >
> > Do you think the D compiler is ready to be called 1.0?
>
> compiler - yes
> phobos - no*
> web site - no**
>
> (*) the only complaints I have about phobos is the AA behavior and some
> needed Exception/Error refactoring
> (**) the community stuff needs updating. A vesion 1.0 will get new people
> and the community links will be vital for these folks to get oriented.
Also
> a more complete spec would help. For example "final" is an attribute but
the
> only mention of what it does is in the functions.html for decorating a function member. No other use is mentioned (is it legal or undefined...?)
>
>
>

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Brad Anderson wrote:
> 
>> I know the ebuilds are out there, but not included in Portage, because of the licensing.  That was my only point.  If it's fixed, maybe they'll include it so 'emerge dmd' works.
> 
> 
> There should not be any problem with the ebuild, as far as I can tell:
> 
> # edit /etc/make.conf:
> PORTDIR_OVERLAY=/usr/local/portage
> 
> mkdir -p /usr/local/portage/dev-lang/dmd
> cd /usr/local/portage/dev-lang/dmd
> 
> 
> wget -N -O dmd-0.119.ebuild \
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=52307&action=view
> 
> ebuild dmd-0.119.ebuild fetch
> ebuild dmd-0.119.ebuild digest
> 
> 
> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge dmd
>  >>> dev-lang/dmd-0.119 merged.
> 
> --anders

I understand that the ebuild works.  However, it's not in Portage.  See these search results:

http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=dmd

BA

Brad Anderson wrote:

> I understand that the ebuild works.  However, it's not in Portage.

That's up to "politics", and the Gentoo maintainers...

I just showed how to actually install the software. :-)

--anders