On 12/24/14 4:59 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 15:49:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Congratulations, Igor! -- Andrei
>
> Good to see that.
>
> It is a big feature though with a notable impact on symbol resolution.
> How about providing it as a separate compiler build for a release or two
> before deploying as part of master?

An emerging pattern (which Walter will effect for dip69) is to initially make it opt-in as a flag:

dip -dip69 test.d


Andrei

On 12/24/14 5:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> Only reason why D1 is still used here is huge effort investment to
> actually port that much code without ever delaying normal deployment
> schedule - and I am working on this to change :)

ETA? -- Andrei

On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 22:12:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> An emerging pattern (which Walter will effect for dip69) is to initially make it opt-in as a flag:
>
> dip -dip69 test.d

Great!

Though I would suggest -dip=69 as a small tweak for a bit more robust CLI (leaves possibility for both -dip=-69 and -dip=+69 in future)

On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 22:13:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/24/14 5:54 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>> Only reason why D1 is still used here is huge effort investment to
>> actually port that much code without ever delaying normal deployment
>> schedule - and I am working on this to change :)
>
> ETA? -- Andrei

With current progress I'd estimate second half of 2015 (closer to the end) to get first proof of concept service ported to D2. Getting completely rid of D1 and specifically ensuring smooth transition of services with real-time requirements will take much longer, probably several more years.

On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 22:52:12 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 22:12:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> An emerging pattern (which Walter will effect for dip69) is to initially make it opt-in as a flag:
>>
>> dip -dip69 test.d
>
> Great!
>
+1

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 15:49:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Congratulations, Igor! -- Andrei

Good news, congratulations Igor.

On 24/12/2014 06:18, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
> "lazy" was implemented in Algol and then shunned in just about all
> languages that followed.

FWIW Apple's recent Swift has @autoclosure, which is the same as lazy. It's needed to implement assert in Swift.

On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 12:32:32 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On 24/12/2014 06:18, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
>> "lazy" was implemented in Algol and then shunned in just about all
>> languages that followed.
>
> FWIW Apple's recent Swift has @autoclosure, which is the same as lazy. It's needed to implement assert in Swift.

Yes...

«As with macros in C, auto-closures are a very powerful feature that must be used carefully because there is no indication on the caller side that argument evaluation is affected.»

https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=4

yes - please resurrect D1!!!!!!!!!!!

+100



On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:16:32 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 12:59:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 15:49:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> resolution. How about providing it as a separate compiler build
>
> I feel like dropping D1 was not such a good move. Especially if full ABI compatibility with D2, people could have chose to write some of the less critical modules of their software in D2 (along with the enthusiasm of discovery), while still having a stable&non-experimental compiler for the really critical things.
>
> Then, D1 would have become D1.5 by integrating the D2 time-proven features etc., just as D2 could become D2.5.
>
> Is too late (or undesired) to resurrect D1 in maintenance mode? It is a bit strange that one of the most successful stories of D (Sociomantic) uses D1, still the compiler is ignored and everybody seems pretending that is a D (D2) success story.

On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 14:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:54:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:16:32 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 12:59:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 15:49:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> What would be the point of it? D1 is almost absolutely inferior to D2 (both compiler and language) and lacks any better tools recently created by the community.
>
> I do not contest that. But will be a less-deceiving entry-point for those that are new to the language, they will bite and would wish to see more...

It sounds like you have overly positive memories of D1. Working with it daily and especially dealing with all the compiler bugs we had back then (and still have with dmd1) - it is hardly an experience I'd want newcomer to have. Lacking quality of the toolchain kills any benefit from the language simplicity.