On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 13:23:50 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote:
> Surely the compiler should always rely on the previous compiler + standard library versions.
>
> Is there really a valid reason not to do this? Surely if the dog food is so bad no one should be eating?

I am hoping that DMD will be refactored to be a showcase for idiomatic D. I think that would help a lot, but in terms of attracting new developers, PR and general eco system improvements.

Andrei mentioned a new versions of his book being on the horizon. I assume that also means that the language spec will change and that there will be a need for a new hands to help implement it.

On 02-Sep-2015 16:23, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Dmitry Olshansky via
> Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com
> <mailto:digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     Because the compiler and library releases go in lockstep we'd have
>     to wait for another release cycle to even field-test @nogc. Not
>     acceptable really.
>
>     Phobos ends up battle testing every new feature and if it wasn't new
>     features will be definitely shipped in a broken state. Let's not
>     forget that new D frontend features still have many bugs that stay
>     undetected even after testing in Phobos.
>
>     --
>     Dmitry Olshansky
>
>
> Surely the compiler should always rely on the previous compiler +
> standard library versions.
>
> Is there really a valid reason not to do this? Surely if the dog food is
> so bad no one should be eating?

Anyhow I'd let compiler team decide this.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 15:48:42 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
> Exactly. I was surprised to find out I couldn't use Phobos in ddmd. Raw D is still more pleasant than programming in C++, but not nearly as much fun as writing normal D code.

Wait can the GC be used in ddmd?

On 2/09/2015 11:23 PM, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> Surely if the dog food is so bad no one should be eating?

It's not that phobos is bad, it's that we're following the same development pattern we had with C++.  We're using a conservative subset of D features and libraries, and slowly expanding what's acceptable. For example, DMD now uses foreach and delegates in a few places, and I expect we'll see a lot of use of D strings in the near future.

On 1/09/2015 11:57 PM, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> Surely this is a code coverage issue then?
> Are there any unit tests  in ddmd?

There is an enormous test suite, but there are also plenty of parts with zero coverage.

On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 05:17:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4923
>
> We have made the switch from C++ DMD to D DMD!
>
> Many, many thanks to Daniel Murphy for slaving away for 2.5 years to make this happen. More thanks to Martin Nowak for helping shepherd it through the final stages, and to several others who have pitched in on this.
>
> This is a HUGE milestone for us.
>
> Much work remains to be done, such as rebasing existing dmd pull requests. Thanks in advance for the submitters who'll be doing that. I hope you aren't too unhappy about the extra work - it's in a good cause!

Should we be looking to put out a DMD 2.069 beta to get more hands on testing it early?

On Friday, 4 September 2015 at 12:38:41 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> expanding what's acceptable. For example, DMD now uses foreach and delegates in a few places, and I expect we'll see a lot of use of D strings in the near future.

But you are going to do high level refactoring too, right? Not just local conversions into foreachs and the like?

On 2015-09-05 18:47, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com> wrote:

> But you are going to do high level refactoring too, right? Not just
> local conversions into foreachs and the like?

I'm pretty sure the conversion tool already converted at least some loops to foreach loops.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 6/09/2015 2:47 AM, Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But you are going to do high level refactoring too, right? Not just
> local conversions into foreachs and the like?
>

Of course.  Some of this was been started before the conversion.

On 6/09/2015 5:11 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure the conversion tool already converted at least some
> loops to foreach loops.
>

I took that code out some time before the switch because D's stricter implicit conversions were causing problems in some places.  Even doing it by hand is error-prone since dmd makes use of the extra freedom you get from raw for loops.