Jason House Wrote:

> Bill Baxter Wrote:
> 
> > Just curious how many folks are actually using D2.x already.
> > Reply here, or if you'd like to keep the noise on the NG down, just
> > respond with this no-reg-required poll:
> > 
> >     http://www.billbaxter.com/tmp/d2poll.html
> > 
> > --bb
> 
> No.
> 
> Part of it could be that I'm using Tango and it doesn't support 2.x.  > The bigger part is that I don't know how much work it'll be to port > to 2.x alpha and the later 2.x when const is fixed.  It's a shame the > discussions about why that is and how to fix it died on this NG.  It'd > be nice to see a plan ahead for const in 2.x (that'd help soothe my > issues)

Its not dead its resting (pining for the fjords). I guess we are waiting for Walter and the inner circle to post a revamped suggestion or someone to work through the use cases and have a new brain wave.

Tomas Lindquist Olsen Wrote:

> Nope. I wish there was no D 2.0.

Isn't that a little like wishing there was no tomorrow? A language, especially one as new as D must have some room to mature.

Ary Manzana Wrote:

> In Descent we are mainly focusing on doing the semantic analysis for D1.x, since D2.x is a constantly moving target.
> 

Is CONSTantly moving target a deliberate pun?

Bruce Adams wrote:
> Ary Manzana Wrote:
> 
>> In Descent we are mainly focusing on doing the semantic analysis for D1.x, since D2.x is a constantly moving target.
>>
> 
> Is CONSTantly moving target a deliberate pun?

It's invariantly not, really.

Ary Manzana wrote:
> Bruce Adams wrote:
>> Ary Manzana Wrote:
>>
>>> In Descent we are mainly focusing on doing the semantic analysis for D1.x, since D2.x is a constantly moving target.
>>>
>>
>> Is CONSTantly moving target a deliberate pun?
> 
> It's invariantly not, really.

finally, a good pun.

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Just curious how many folks are actually using D2.x already.
> Reply here, or if you'd like to keep the noise on the NG down, just respond with this no-reg-required poll:
> 
>    http://www.billbaxter.com/tmp/d2poll.html
> 
> --bb

Nope.  Still using D1.x whenever I get the chance to do D coding.

I tried 2.x, and I forget everything that happened except for a related combination of constness and pain.

I'm kinda disturbed by this const thing.  It doesn't seem to just flow nicely like most of the rest of D.  It seems to be a huge time sink too, for everyone involved.  An earlier post suggested focusing on pure functions and such as an alternative, which is something I could actually get behind.

I might try it again at some point, even if only to check the conclusions of my previous experiences.

Bruce Adams wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen Wrote:
> 
>> Nope. I wish there was no D 2.0.
> 
> Isn't that a little like wishing there was no tomorrow? A language, especially one as new as D must have some room to mature.

I guess you could see it like that. I don't like what I'm seeing D2.0 become and thus I wish it didn't exist. Probably when D1.0 is no longer maintained I wont be using D anymore... At least that is how I feel about the whole thing right now. Who knows, maybe D-const will actually turn out quite nice, and I might change my mind.

Tomas Lindquist Olsen Wrote:

> Bruce Adams wrote:
> > Tomas Lindquist Olsen Wrote:
> > 
> >> Nope. I wish there was no D 2.0.
> > 
> > Isn't that a little like wishing there was no tomorrow? A language, especially one as new as D must have some room to mature.
> 
> I guess you could see it like that. I don't like what I'm seeing D2.0 become and thus I wish it didn't exist. Probably when D1.0 is no longer maintained I wont be using D anymore... At least that is how I feel about the whole thing right now. Who knows, maybe D-const will actually turn out quite nice, and I might change my mind.

What has D2.0 become? I just see a better D myself. Apart from the const mess, do you see anything else with a bad smell? I guess D1.0 was a pure C++ refactoring while D2.0 is trying to move beyond that and make D something more in its own right?

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Just curious how many folks are actually using D2.x already.
> Reply here, or if you'd like to keep the noise on the NG down, just respond with this no-reg-required poll:
> 
>    http://www.billbaxter.com/tmp/d2poll.html

Here's a summary of the poll results:

-------------------------------
From the web poll:
Yes: 28  No: 87

From replies here:
Yes: ~6  No: ~13

Totals:
Yes:  34/134 = 25%
No:  100/134 = 75%

--------------------------------
Comments from the webpoll:

problems with installing both version in one system

Don't really need anything from d2. Const maybe, but it's apparently not ready yet.

until tango works with D2.0 I stay with 1.0

tango only for 1.0

See NG posts about tango and const

D1. Too many announced code-breaking future changes are yet to happen.

I'm using version 1 becasue of Tango compatibility

I was using it, but decided to wait for the const changes to go through.	

I actually (for the most part) like the new const, and the new invariant is what pulled me over for a couple of my projects.

I'm use D 1.0 with tango in a small real world project, and would expand the usage if this time D prove itself.


Waiting for the const issues to be resolved properly

not as stable (both implementation and spec).

working with multiple guys i cannot live without const

Bud will compile on either

I'm waiting for it to stabilize.

first! 0ffh =) [btw. drat compiles with D2.005, i suppose i'll have to update it for 2.006)

I'm waiting for const to be settled


---------------------------
My summary:
Looks like the main reasons for not going to 2.0 are
* Tango
* waiting for const to be settled
* generally waiting for more "stability"

--bb

No, but I would be if tango supported it.

Bill Baxter Wrote:

> Bill Baxter wrote:
> > Just curious how many folks are actually using D2.x already.
> > Reply here, or if you'd like to keep the noise on the NG down, just
> > respond with this no-reg-required poll:
> > 
> >    http://www.billbaxter.com/tmp/d2poll.html
> 
> Here's a summary of the poll results:
> 
> -------------------------------
>  From the web poll:
> Yes: 28  No: 87
> 
>  From replies here:
> Yes: ~6  No: ~13
> 
> Totals:
> Yes:  34/134 = 25%
> No:  100/134 = 75%
> 
> --------------------------------
> Comments from the webpoll:
> 
> problems with installing both version in one system
> 
> Don't really need anything from d2. Const maybe, but it's apparently not ready yet.
> 
> until tango works with D2.0 I stay with 1.0
> 
> tango only for 1.0
> 
> See NG posts about tango and const
> 
> D1. Too many announced code-breaking future changes are yet to happen.
> 
> I'm using version 1 becasue of Tango compatibility
> 
> I was using it, but decided to wait for the const changes to go through.
> 
> I actually (for the most part) like the new const, and the new invariant is what pulled me over for a couple of my projects.
> 
> I'm use D 1.0 with tango in a small real world project, and would expand the usage if this time D prove itself.
> 
> 
> Waiting for the const issues to be resolved properly
> 
> not as stable (both implementation and spec).
> 
> working with multiple guys i cannot live without const
> 
> Bud will compile on either
> 
> I'm waiting for it to stabilize.
> 
> first! 0ffh =) [btw. drat compiles with D2.005, i suppose i'll have to update it for 2.006)
> 
> I'm waiting for const to be settled
> 
> 
> ---------------------------
> My summary:
> Looks like the main reasons for not going to 2.0 are
> * Tango
> * waiting for const to be settled
> * generally waiting for more "stability"
> 
> --bb