On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Ary Borenszweig <ary@esperanto.org.ar> wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llucax@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tomas Lindquist Olsen, el 26 de marzo a las 18:18 me escribiste:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llucax@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...snip...
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I'd love to see some kind of D 1.1 (maybe LDC could be used
>>>>> to
>>>>> make an "unofficial" D 1.1 language), with a few minor non-breaking new
>>>>> features over D 1.0, then D 1.2 could introduce some more, and so on.
>>>>> This
>>>>> way people can catch-up easly, with small simple iterations, and D1
>>>>> wont
>>>>> feel as a dead frozen language.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is bound to happen sooner or later.
>>>
>>> Well, then I'd love it happen sooner ;)
>>
>> We could start by figuring out what D 1.1 is ...
>
> It's D2 - const/invariant, yeaaah! :-P
>

Sounds a little drastic to me.

ValeriM wrote:
> No. It's not stable.
> Try to build last Tango and DWT releases with D1.041 and you will get the problems.

I am not aware that D1.041 broke Tango and DWT. Please, which bugzilla numbers are those?

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:27:52 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> ValeriM wrote:
>> No. It's not stable.
>> Try to build last Tango and DWT releases with D1.041 and you will get the problems.
>
> I am not aware that D1.041 broke Tango and DWT. Please, which bugzilla numbers are those?
> 

One of the breaking changes that I recall was that you made Posix identifier built-in and thus any custom Posix versioning became an error. Not sure if it was introduced in 1.041, though, but it is still a breaking change.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:27:52 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> ValeriM wrote:
>> No. It's not stable.
>> Try to build last Tango and DWT releases with D1.041 and you will get the problems.
>
> I am not aware that D1.041 broke Tango and DWT. Please, which bugzilla numbers are those?
> 

BTW, looks like you released 1.042 about two weeks ago, but the file is not found on the server.

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> One of the breaking changes that I recall was that you made Posix
> identifier built-in and thus any custom Posix versioning became an
> error. Not sure if it was introduced in 1.041, though, but it is
> still a breaking change.

It was more of a build system change, but I get your point. It shows that even trivial changes are a bad idea for D1.

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> BTW, looks like you released 1.042 about two weeks ago, but the file
> is not found on the server.
> 

It wasn't released. 1.041 is the current version.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:42:01 -0400, Mike James <foo@bar.com> wrote:

> Is Tango for D2.0 at a level of D1.0 and can be used now?

No.  It is being worked on.  I don't forsee Tango for D2 being ready until at least September, perhaps later.

-Steve

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>
>> One of the breaking changes that I recall was that you made Posix identifier built-in and thus any custom Posix versioning became an error. Not sure if it was introduced in 1.041, though, but it is still a breaking change.
>
> It was more of a build system change, but I get your point. It shows that even trivial changes are a bad idea for D1.
>

Everyone certainly does not think it was a bad idea. If trivial things like this sets people off, they should at least look at the problem (and comment those few lines) before complaining.

All my humble opinion of course.

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:42:01 -0400, Mike James <foo@bar.com> wrote:
> 
>> Is Tango for D2.0 at a level of D1.0 and can be used now?
> 
> No.  It is being worked on.  I don't forsee Tango for D2 being ready until at least September, perhaps later.
> 
> -Steve

Would you mind outlining / documenting what needs to be done?  I'd expect that there are a number of people who would be interested in volunteering to help.

Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Walter Bright
> <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>> One of the breaking changes that I recall was that you made Posix
>>> identifier built-in and thus any custom Posix versioning became an
>>> error. Not sure if it was introduced in 1.041, though, but it is
>>> still a breaking change.
>> It was more of a build system change, but I get your point. It shows that
>> even trivial changes are a bad idea for D1.
>>
> 
> Everyone certainly does not think it was a bad idea. If trivial things
> like this sets people off, they should at least look at the problem
> (and comment those few lines) before complaining.
> 
> All my humble opinion of course.

To me, it illustrates a fundamental disconnect. One cannot have both a 100% stable language and yet introduce improvements to it.

As for the does one develop stable code targeting D1 and D2, I would suggest targeting D1 but be careful to use the string alias for all the char[]'s, and treat strings as if they were immutable. This will cover 90% of any source code changes between D1 and D2, perhaps even more than 90%. It's also very possible to write D1 code using the immutability style, in fact, I advocated it long before D2 (see all the old threads discussing Copy On Write). If code follows the COW principle, it should port from D1 to D2 with little more than a few cosmetic changes.