View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 09, 2006
Time to release 1.0
D seems sufficiently mature that a Release 1.0 should be finalized now, rather
than waiting to iron out all of the little kinks.

Many other languages started life as rough and messy hatchlings, only to mature
later.  Pascal did not get wings until Borlad invested time and resources on it.
So it is time for a Release 1.0 -- later on we can remove the warts and pimples.
February 09, 2006
Re: Time to release 1.0
cletuspaul wrote:
> D seems sufficiently mature that a Release 1.0 should be finalized now, rather
> than waiting to iron out all of the little kinks.
> 
> Many other languages started life as rough and messy hatchlings, only to mature
> later.  Pascal did not get wings until Borlad invested time and resources on it.
> So it is time for a Release 1.0 -- later on we can remove the warts and pimples.
> 
>
I think that before a 1.0 is released, the D online presence needs to be 
cleaned up a bit. Ideally, there would be one site that people could go 
to and easily get started with D. That means the site would have to be 
entirely dedicated to D, easy to follow, pleasant to look at, with no 
duplicated or rendunant/inconsistent information, etc. A second site 
would be dedicated to projects (dsource.org already exists but needs to 
be cleaned up).

There would also need to be a D package with most of the necessary items 
in it. Perhaps even an installer. At the very least, a list of 
D-endorsed tools would be available (with download links).


So until all that is done, I don't think it's time to release 1.0.
February 09, 2006
Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers)
nick wrote:

> There would also need to be a D package with most of the necessary items 
> in it. Perhaps even an installer. At the very least, a list of 
> D-endorsed tools would be available (with download links).

I plan on releasing installers for GDC (the "GNU D Compiler")
Already done for Mac and Linux, but will do for MinGW as well.

Walter does not want to do it for DMD (for Windows and Linux),
and due to the non-distribute license nobody else can either.

GDC is released under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
My builds are all aimed at using the system "gcc" and "g++".

--anders


PS.
See http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net (Mac OS X) and
    http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/gdc.spec (SRPM)

Target platforms: Mac OS X 10.3, Mac OS X 10.4
                  Fedora Core 1, Fedora Core 4
                  Windows XP with MinGW / MSYS
February 09, 2006
Re: Time to release 1.0
nick wrote:

> I think that before a 1.0 is released, the D online presence needs to be 
> cleaned up a bit. Ideally, there would be one site that people could go 
> to and easily get started with D. That means the site would have to be 
> entirely dedicated to D, easy to follow, pleasant to look at, with no 
> duplicated or rendunant/inconsistent information, etc. [...]

If someone could put http://opend.org and http://sf.net/projects/brightd
out of their misery, that'd be good thing for D-outside-of-DigitalMars.

They haven't been updated since 2002, and just give a bad impression...

--anders
February 09, 2006
Re: Time to release 1.0
cletuspaul wrote:
> D seems sufficiently mature that a Release 1.0 should be finalized now, rather
> than waiting to iron out all of the little kinks.
> 
> Many other languages started life as rough and messy hatchlings, only to mature
> later.  Pascal did not get wings until Borlad invested time and resources on it.
> So it is time for a Release 1.0 -- later on we can remove the warts and pimples.

But did the creators of those languages realise that they were rough and 
messy hatchlings when their 1.0s were released?

At the moment there are just too many showstoppers.  Among them, there 
are enough holes and inconsistencies in the spec that it's impossible to 
write a complete and correct D compiler.  See

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

Prospective compiler writers will think "it's reached 1.0, so it must be 
implementable", only to find out the hard way that they're wrong.

Designing D has involved learning from the mistakes of other languages. 
 This should extend to the decision of when is 1.0 time.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
February 09, 2006
Re: Time to release 1.0
In article <dsepem$hcm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, nick says...
>
>I think that before a 1.0 is released, the D online presence needs to be 
>cleaned up a bit. Ideally, there would be one site that people could go 
>to and easily get started with D. That means the site would have to be 
>entirely dedicated to D, easy to follow, pleasant to look at, with no 
>duplicated or rendunant/inconsistent information, etc. A second site 
>would be dedicated to projects (dsource.org already exists but needs to 
>be cleaned up).

I agree, I can envision a site with introductions, tutorials, specifications,
references, downloads, forums, links, a "news" column, etc. I see that
dlanguage.com and .org are available...

Nick
February 09, 2006
Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers)
In article <dsf05n$t8j$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...
>
>nick wrote:
>
>> There would also need to be a D package with most of the necessary items 
>> in it. Perhaps even an installer. At the very least, a list of 
>> D-endorsed tools would be available (with download links).
>
>I plan on releasing installers for GDC (the "GNU D Compiler")
>Already done for Mac and Linux, but will do for MinGW as well.
>
>Walter does not want to do it for DMD (for Windows and Linux),
>and due to the non-distribute license nobody else can either.
>
>GDC is released under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
>My builds are all aimed at using the system "gcc" and "g++".
>
>--anders
>
>
>PS.
>See http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net (Mac OS X) and
>     http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/gdc.spec (SRPM)
>
>Target platforms: Mac OS X 10.3, Mac OS X 10.4
>                   Fedora Core 1, Fedora Core 4
>                   Windows XP with MinGW / MSYS

Will this XP installer allow users to compile/run directly from a windows
'command prompt' w/o having to open a MinGW or MSYS 'shell'?

If not, does DJGPP allow for that and (if so) what would be the chances of
something like that happening?

Thanks,

- Dave
February 09, 2006
Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers)
Dave wrote:

>>I plan on releasing installers for GDC (the "GNU D Compiler")
>>Already done for Mac and Linux, but will do for MinGW as well.

> Will this XP installer allow users to compile/run directly from a windows
> 'command prompt' w/o having to open a MinGW or MSYS 'shell'?

I had only planned to do one for the GNU environment (i.e. MSYS)
But I *think* that it could work for both ? (I'm not a Win expert)

Wanted MinGW for the other tools, like bash and make and gcc etc.

--anders
February 10, 2006
Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers)
Anders F Björklund wrote:
<snip>
> Walter does not want to do it for DMD (for Windows and Linux),
> and due to the non-distribute license nobody else can either.
<snip>

Does DMD really need an installer?  Opening a .zip file and extracting 
its contents isn't that difficult an operation.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
February 10, 2006
Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers)
Stewart Gordon wrote:

>> Walter does not want to do it for DMD (for Windows and Linux),
>> and due to the non-distribute license nobody else can either.
> 
> Does DMD really need an installer?  Opening a .zip file and extracting 
> its contents isn't that difficult an operation.

I dunno...

I've found that the Linux RPM helps with upgrades, and some people
like an EXE installer as it sets up the PATH for you and so on...

I provide both a PKG and a ZIP for GDC/Mac, and there people prefer the
Installer (wizard) variant) I think DMD could use both too ? (EXE/ZIP)

Might try making one with NSIS, as I'm trying to learn that anyway.
But the general sentiment has been that the DMD ZIP is "good enough".

--anders
« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home