Hello, everyone,
will ISO D be in future or not?

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 08:02:42 eugene via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Hello, everyone,
> will ISO D be in future or not?

The future? Maybe. But it's unlikely to happen soon. As a whole, the language is pretty solid, but there are details that still need to be ironed out spec-wise, there are a few cases where features need to be completed or expanded, and we're likely to be adding a feature or two to solve some of the current problems (e.g. Walter is working on adding ref-counting to the language so that less depends on the GC). So, while D's language definition is _far_ more stable than it once was, it's still in enough flux that a standard wouldn't make a lot of sense yet.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:48:12 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 08:02:42 eugene via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Hello, everyone,
>> will ISO D be in future or not?
>
> The future? Maybe. But it's unlikely to happen soon. As a whole, the language is pretty solid, but there are details that still need to be ironed out spec-wise, there are a few cases where features need to be completed or expanded, and we're likely to be adding a feature or two to solve some of the current problems (e.g. Walter is working on adding ref-counting to the language so that less depends on the GC). So, while D's language definition is _far_ more stable than it once was, it's still in enough flux that a standard wouldn't make a lot of sense yet.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

is it probably 5 years for ISO D to happen or more?

On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 09:25:38 UTC, eugene wrote:
> is it probably 5 years for ISO D to happen or more?

On the topic: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/wzifwqtytvkqmecbfgqw@forum.dlang.org

On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 08:02 +0000, eugene via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Hello, everyone,
> will ISO D be in future or not?

I am not sure this would be a good thing. Given the history of Fortran, C, and C++, avoiding ISO standardization processes  would seem to be a good thing for any other programming language. Even the Java process is fairly dreadful.

Having a sensible version release programme is more important that a standard, though having a formal language specification in machine readable format is a good idea.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:
> will ISO D be in future or not?

What would be the benefits?

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 09:25:38 eugene via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> is it probably 5 years for ISO D to happen or more?

I don't think that any of us know where D will be in 5 years. Having an ISO standard at some point is certainly a possibility, but it's not even clear that it's something that we're going to want. Some languages have ISO standards, some don't, and there are very successful languages in both categories.

So, having an ISO standard is a possibility but not a goal, and when we will have one - if ever - is a complete unknown beyond the fact that it's not happening right now.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:47:35 UTC, qznc wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:
>> will ISO D be in future or not?
>
> What would be the benefits?

unified language standard?

On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 11:34:01 UTC, eugene wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:47:35 UTC, qznc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:
>>> will ISO D be in future or not?
>>
>> What would be the benefits?
>
> unified language standard?

While the spec might not be 100% perfect, it tries to be a unified language standard. After all D already has four different compilers: DMD, LDC, GDC, and SDC.

So imho the best thing to do is to improve the "dirty" bits in the spec that have hidden assumptions or aren't clear enough, but that's a steady process which is done without an ISO spec. Besides who do you prefer to have control over the language: the D Foundation or an international company (which you have to keep on your payroll)?

On 08/17/2016 02:34 PM, eugene wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:47:35 UTC, qznc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 08:02:42 UTC, eugene wrote:
>>> will ISO D be in future or not?
>>
>> What would be the benefits?
> 
> unified language standard?

Unified among whom? There is only one feature complete D frontend right now. I'd say that the moment second competing frontend appears would be exactly the proper time to think about formal standartization.