Denton Cockburn wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:35:41 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Andrei has announced on his web site http://erdani.org/ that he's
>> working on the book "The D Programming Language" due out in October of
>> 1998.
> 
> With a release date of a year away, I'm guessing he'll be putting forward the new things in D 2.0?
> 
> These two books will be really good for D.
> Now the D-volution begins. (That still makes sense, you're remaking C++ properly)

The idea is that the book will represent D 2.0.

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:48:40 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Denton Cockburn wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:35:41 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> Andrei has announced on his web site http://erdani.org/ that he's
>>> working on the book "The D Programming Language" due out in October of
>>> 1998.
>>  With a release date of a year away, I'm guessing he'll be putting forward the new things in D 2.0?
>>  These two books will be really good for D.
>> Now the D-volution begins. (That still makes sense, you're remaking C++ properly)
>
> The idea is that the book will represent D 2.0.

Could we expect that D 2.0 will be stable enough at Oct 2008 and there won't be new compatibility-breaking changes in the language?

-- 
Regards,
Yauheni Akhotnikau

eao197 wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:48:40 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
>> Denton Cockburn wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:35:41 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrei has announced on his web site http://erdani.org/ that he's
>>>> working on the book "The D Programming Language" due out in October of
>>>> 1998.
>>>  With a release date of a year away, I'm guessing he'll be putting forward the new things in D 2.0?
>>>  These two books will be really good for D.
>>> Now the D-volution begins. (That still makes sense, you're remaking C++ properly)
>>
>> The idea is that the book will represent D 2.0.
> 
> Could we expect that D 2.0 will be stable enough at Oct 2008 and there won't be new compatibility-breaking changes in the language?
> 

I hope it isn't.

I like the fact that D is constantly evolving. Certainly, there's a bit of feature creep here & there, but overall it gives the feeling that D is certainly bridging the gap between programming paradigms and presenting itself as a modern language.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:22:10 -0800, Robert Fraser wrote:

> eao197 wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:48:40 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Denton Cockburn wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:35:41 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andrei has announced on his web site http://erdani.org/ that he's working on the book "The D Programming Language" due out in October of 1998.
>>>>  With a release date of a year away, I'm guessing he'll be putting
>>>> forward the new things in D 2.0?
>>>>  These two books will be really good for D.
>>>> Now the D-volution begins. (That still makes sense, you're remaking
>>>> C++ properly)
>>>
>>> The idea is that the book will represent D 2.0.
>> 
>> Could we expect that D 2.0 will be stable enough at Oct 2008 and there won't be new compatibility-breaking changes in the language?
>> 
>> 
> I hope it isn't.
> 
> I like the fact that D is constantly evolving. Certainly, there's a bit of feature creep here & there, but overall it gives the feeling that D is certainly bridging the gap between programming paradigms and presenting itself as a modern language.

While true and agreeable, we do need a point at which D should be stable enough to have another official release (2.0).

Then the new development branch can be 3.0

Thinking about it though, it is kinda weird to have 2.0 come out after having worked with 2.00(1-8).

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:22:10 +0300, Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight@gmail.com> wrote:

> eao197 wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:48:40 +0300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Denton Cockburn wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:35:41 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andrei has announced on his web site http://erdani.org/ that he's
>>>>> working on the book "The D Programming Language" due out in October of
>>>>> 1998.
>>>>  With a release date of a year away, I'm guessing he'll be putting forward the new things in D 2.0?
>>>>  These two books will be really good for D.
>>>> Now the D-volution begins. (That still makes sense, you're remaking C++ properly)
>>>
>>> The idea is that the book will represent D 2.0.
>>  Could we expect that D 2.0 will be stable enough at Oct 2008 and there won't be new compatibility-breaking changes in the language?
>>
>
> I hope it isn't.
>
> I like the fact that D is constantly evolving. Certainly, there's a bit of feature creep here & there, but overall it gives the feeling that D is certainly bridging the gap between programming paradigms and presenting itself as a modern language.

I don't want to start a new wave of this holy war. It is need to clarify my question: there are good examples of new versions of languages which do not require redesigning already written programs: evolution of Java, evolution of C#, evolution of Ruby (prior to 1.9), evolution of Python (prior to 3.0) and so on. These aren't 100% source code compatible, but switching to a new version requires only relative small changes in existing programs (C# 3.0 is very good example of adding some of new ground-breaking features in the language). So my question means: would D 2.0 be in the state when new language modifications won't require redesigning old programs? Unlike to the situation with const in D 2.0 which requires careful addition of const in D 1.0-based programs.

-- 
Regards,
Yauheni Akhotnikau

eao197 wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:48:40 +0300, Walter Bright 
>> The idea is that the book will represent D 2.0.
> 
> Could we expect that D 2.0 will be stable enough at Oct 2008 and there won't be new compatibility-breaking changes in the language?

Yes.

Robert Fraser wrote:
> I hope it isn't.
> 
> I like the fact that D is constantly evolving. Certainly, there's a bit of feature creep here & there, but overall it gives the feeling that D is certainly bridging the gap between programming paradigms and presenting itself as a modern language.

We'll just start on D 3.0 then.

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:fjb1ii$1jsv$2@digitalmars.com...
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>> I hope it isn't.
>>
>> I like the fact that D is constantly evolving. Certainly, there's a bit of feature creep here & there, but overall it gives the feeling that D is certainly bridging the gap between programming paradigms and presenting itself as a modern language.
>
> We'll just start on D 3.0 then.

I would hope that when D 2.0 features have been completed, that some time and effort will be expended toward stability and back-end optimization. Personally, I would prefer an high-quality 2.0 to a 3.0.  Besides, given the scope of D 2.0, I can't quite fathom what features you would include in a D 3.0.

-Craig

Craig Black wrote:
> Besides, given the scope of D 2.0, I can't quite fathom what features you would include in a D 3.0.

It's far too early to make plans, but I expect 3.0 would be a push to support functional programming and other things for multicore programming.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Craig Black wrote:
>> Besides, given the scope of D 2.0, I can't quite fathom what features you would include in a D 3.0.
> 
> It's far too early to make plans, but I expect 3.0 would be a push to support functional programming and other things for multicore programming.
How about a run-time interpretive layer, or a good graphics library (not form building, but the kind of thing form building libraries are built from)?

Most things I can think of, except run-time interpretation (ala Python or Smalltalk), seem to be library improvements.  I suppose that a better C++ interface could be invoked here, but I see that as a part of 2.x.