No doubt, D is the victim of its own popularity.

When are you gonna roll out v1.0 ??

;) :D :->
Mr. Desperate

sleo wrote:
> No doubt, D is the victim of its own popularity.
> 
> When are you gonna roll out v1.0 ?? 

"When it's done." :-) But the language spec is pretty much set for 1.0 so what's really left are compiler fixes and library work.

Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> sleo wrote:
> 
>> No doubt, D is the victim of its own popularity.
>>
>> When are you gonna roll out v1.0 ?? 
> 
> 
> "When it's done." :-) But the language spec is pretty much set for 1.0 so what's really left are compiler fixes and library work.
> 
> Sean

For me, the core library is very important - in fact, I consider it part of the language. Is Phobos considered the core library for D? If not, is there a part of Phobos which is the core library, or does D simply not have a core library (which would be odd)?

I consider the core library to be part of the language, so when you say that the language spec. is mostly done for 1.0 are you including the core library API in that, or is there still a lot of work to be done on that?

I would say D still has a little way to go before it is ready for 1.0. Phobos needs a good bit of work IMO (though I haven't checked what's changed in the last few months), and there needs to be a huge overhaul of the documentation. Perhaps Phobos can be modified to use DOxygen comments or something?

I've been pretty spoiled by Java's core libraries, and while I know D could not possibly match that at 1.0, I hope that what is there will be of as high a quality.

Daniel Siegmann wrote:
> 
> For me, the core library is very important - in fact, I consider it part of the language. Is Phobos considered the core library for D? If not, is there a part of Phobos which is the core library, or does D simply not have a core library (which would be odd)?

That's an open issue I think.  Walter has been focused on compiler work and has said he'll look at the library after that, and there's no agreement within the community on whether the current Phobos is fine as-is, whether it needs some tuning, or whether it should be replaced completely.

 > I would say D still has a little way to go before it is ready for 1.0.
> Phobos needs a good bit of work IMO (though I haven't checked what's changed in the last few months), and there needs to be a huge overhaul of the documentation. Perhaps Phobos can be modified to use DOxygen comments or something?

Documentation will be easy once the powers that be decide the library design is fixed for 1.0 :-)

 > I've been pretty spoiled by Java's core libraries, and while I know D
> could not possibly match that at 1.0, I hope that what is there will be of as high a quality.

I think they it can be even better (though perhaps not as extensive--I've always had an issue with the sheer size of the Java std lib), but that will take some work.

Personally, I'm making no assumptions about Phobos until D is officially 1.0.  But even if it does end up being significantly changed or replaced, there's no reason the old code can't be available to use as well.


Sean