I like this feature so much.

Is it possible to back port opDot to D 1.0?

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:33 AM, u <some@where.com> wrote:
> I like this feature so much.
>
> Is it possible to back port opDot to D 1.0?
>
>

Neeever gonna happen.  Sorry.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:33 AM, u <some@where.com> wrote:
>> I like this feature so much.
>>
>> Is it possible to back port opDot to D 1.0?
>
> Neeever gonna happen.  Sorry.

Not in DMD, at least.  And not likely to happen anywhere else.

--bb

u wrote:
> I like this feature so much.
> Is it possible to back port opDot to D 1.0?


The problem is for every last feature in D 2.0, there's someone who wants that and only that ported to 1.0. If I moved over opDot, what am I going to say to everyone else? I move over their features too, and then D 1.0 becomes 2.0 anyway. I suggest instead just moving to 2.0 <g>.

Walter Bright wrote:
> u wrote:
>> I like this feature so much.
>> Is it possible to back port opDot to D 1.0?
> 
> 
> The problem is for every last feature in D 2.0, there's someone who wants that and only that ported to 1.0. If I moved over opDot, what am I going to say to everyone else? I move over their features too, and then D 1.0 becomes 2.0 anyway. I suggest instead just moving to 2.0 <g>.

What about porting only nonbreaking features to D1? Like token strings, partial IFTI, foreach range, template constraints, ...?

Really, it doesn't make any sense to mutate 1.0 into 2.0. There are separate language specifications and implementations. As Walter writes, use D 2.0 - or make do with D 1.0 until D 2.0 is baked and implemented. I would imagine his time would better spent actually making D 2.0 than injecting D 2.0 into "D 1.0".

- Bent


"Christian Kamm" <kamm-incasoftware@removethis.de> skrev i meddelelsen news:gcpjk0$19cf$1@digitalmars.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> u wrote:
>>> I like this feature so much.
>>> Is it possible to back port opDot to D 1.0?
>>
>>
>> The problem is for every last feature in D 2.0, there's someone who
>> wants that and only that ported to 1.0. If I moved over opDot, what am I
>> going to say to everyone else? I move over their features too, and then
>> D 1.0 becomes 2.0 anyway. I suggest instead just moving to 2.0 <g>.
>
> What about porting only nonbreaking features to D1? Like token strings,
> partial IFTI, foreach range, template constraints, ...?
> 

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Bent Rasmussen <IncredibleShrinkingSphere@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really, it doesn't make any sense to mutate 1.0 into 2.0. There are separate language specifications and implementations. As Walter writes, use D 2.0 - or make do with D 1.0 until D 2.0 is baked and implemented. I would imagine his time would better spent actually making D 2.0 than injecting D 2.0 into "D 1.0".

Walter has said before when this topic came up that it would be trivial for him to back-port such features to D 1.0.  I also thought that the time required was the real blocker, but he said no. According to him the desire to make D 1.0 stable is the reason for not porting them.

Porting proven, non-breaking D2.0 features to D1.0 would *not* mutate D1.0 into D2.0.  Const stuff would never be ported to D1.0, for instance because there's really no way to do it without breaking existing D1 code.  And since we're talking about porting proven, backwards-compatible features, it still means D1.0 is significantly more stable than D2.

For me, D2 is too wild-west (the talk recently has been especially so
-- getting rid of "new" and "delete"!), but D1 is way too stagnant.
The cut-off for what became D1 was really arbitrary.  It wasn't like
the last big "todo" on some list got checked off and D 1.0 was "done".
 No, it was more like, "we should call it 1.0 at some point here so we
can make a big announcement and get some new users with the
slashvertisement that results".  Ok maybe it wasn't so blatant, but
the point was definitely made that some people will refuse to use a
language with a version less than 1.0, so we should label it 1.0 to
get those people to give it a look.

I think there was some hope that making a really stable D1.0 would somehow make D1.0 an attractive choice for companies.  But come on. It was a stretch when D1 was just a niche language.  Now it's a niche language that's also obsolete.  What company would want to jump on that ship?  (Ok, I'm sure the answer is non-zero, but I just don't think it's anywhere near as significant as the number of companies or users who would like to see new non-breaking features in D1.  If they're going to use D at all it's because they believe that productivity gains or fun of using D outweigh the disadvantages of lack of libraries, lack of tools, lack of programmers.)

That's my 2$B!o(B anyway.
--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:
> I think there was some hope that making a really stable D1.0 would somehow make D1.0 an attractive choice for companies.  But come on. It was a stretch when D1 was just a niche language.  Now it's a niche language that's also obsolete.

People made it clear they were not going to use a language for production if it got new features every month. D 1.0 is a complete and very usable language, with the goal of being stable and bug free.

You can't have it both ways - you cannot have a stable language while constantly adding features.

D 1 obsolete? I don't get it. Walter has a point, it's about everybody's personal wish-list.

Of course you do have a point that there's probably a couple of features that would make D 1 more homogeneous and complete, but no language is ever really complete, except for, say - brainfuck.

- Bent


"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen news:mailman.77.1223717588.3087.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Bent Rasmussen
> <IncredibleShrinkingSphere@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Really, it doesn't make any sense to mutate 1.0 into 2.0. There are separate
>> language specifications and implementations. As Walter writes, use D 2.0 -
>> or make do with D 1.0 until D 2.0 is baked and implemented. I would imagine
>> his time would better spent actually making D 2.0 than injecting D 2.0 into
>> "D 1.0".
>
> Walter has said before when this topic came up that it would be
> trivial for him to back-port such features to D 1.0.  I also thought
> that the time required was the real blocker, but he said no.
> According to him the desire to make D 1.0 stable is the reason for not
> porting them.
>
> Porting proven, non-breaking D2.0 features to D1.0 would *not* mutate
> D1.0 into D2.0.  Const stuff would never be ported to D1.0, for
> instance because there's really no way to do it without breaking
> existing D1 code.  And since we're talking about porting proven,
> backwards-compatible features, it still means D1.0 is significantly
> more stable than D2.
>
> For me, D2 is too wild-west (the talk recently has been especially so
> -- getting rid of "new" and "delete"!), but D1 is way too stagnant.
> The cut-off for what became D1 was really arbitrary.  It wasn't like
> the last big "todo" on some list got checked off and D 1.0 was "done".
> No, it was more like, "we should call it 1.0 at some point here so we
> can make a big announcement and get some new users with the
> slashvertisement that results".  Ok maybe it wasn't so blatant, but
> the point was definitely made that some people will refuse to use a
> language with a version less than 1.0, so we should label it 1.0 to
> get those people to give it a look.
>
> I think there was some hope that making a really stable D1.0 would
> somehow make D1.0 an attractive choice for companies.  But come on.
> It was a stretch when D1 was just a niche language.  Now it's a niche
> language that's also obsolete.  What company would want to jump on
> that ship?  (Ok, I'm sure the answer is non-zero, but I just don't
> think it's anywhere near as significant as the number of companies or
> users who would like to see new non-breaking features in D1.  If
> they're going to use D at all it's because they believe that
> productivity gains or fun of using D outweigh the disadvantages of
> lack of libraries, lack of tools, lack of programmers.)
>
> That's my 2$B!o(B anyway.
> --bb 

On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> I think there was some hope that making a really stable D1.0 would somehow make D1.0 an attractive choice for companies.  But come on. It was a stretch when D1 was just a niche language.  Now it's a niche language that's also obsolete.
>
> People made it clear they were not going to use a language for production if it got new features every month. D 1.0 is a complete and very usable language, with the goal of being stable and bug free.
>
> You can't have it both ways - you cannot have a stable language while constantly adding features.

I recall a wise man who once said you shouldn't give much weight to what people use as excuses for not using your language.  They probably aren't going to use it anyway.

--bb