"Tom" <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dnn9h0$1sa4$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> PS: I'll keep promoting D among my people till the end!

Thanks!

Since we're now discussing a 1.0 release, I'd like to toss something into the pot:

1) consider calling it 2.0 ~ we all know the ramifications, and D has been around long enough to deserve that status.

2) whenever the first official, non-beta release is made, it should have addressed all or most of the little niggly things that would be hard to clean up later (once people start to use them). This is quite different from the various features people wish to see included ~ instead, it's a little bit of insurance that the /following/ release will not upset users in some manner. It helps to smooth the release cycle and generates confidence.

It's up to Walter, of course, but it might be useful to collect a list of these little niggly things? In case something is forgotten?

- Kris



"Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dnndcn$20rh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:dnn82k$1qtu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> BCS wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not taking a side on this question but "Do we, or do we not WANT lots of users of D before it goes 1.0?"
>>
>> When is that ?
>>
>> The D spec was conceived in Dec 1999. That's 6 years ago. The first DMD alpha was released in Dec 2001, 4 years ago.
>>
>
> I know and understand what you're getting at, but the timeframe is about par with how much time it took for other languages to start taking hold too, perhaps even less compared to C++ and Java. Of course, now we are dealing with 'internet time' when it comes to anything new in IT (and we wonder why there is so much crap out there <g>).
>
> What D has done in four years is remarkable when you consider how much was done by one person mostly on free time. C++ had a lot of help from what was then probably the premier CS research organization in the world, and Java had a large and rapidly growing tech. giant behind it.
>
> (I'm not forgetting the major contributions of others here, but no one can argue who's done the great majority of the work)
>
>> So if I do find someone that would be willing to try D, should tell them to wait "a little longer" while the language specification and reference compiler is being worked on ? Or should I ask them to help out meanwhile ?
>
> I'm telling people all of the time about D, but I do add the caveat that it's 'young' yet, *but* that's usually right before I also add that the language, tools and library are pretty stable, and are great for writing utlities where script just doesn't cut it. The primary problem is that A) I work for clients who drink the Microsoft koolaid or B) work for clients using proprietary Unix systems and tools.
>
>>> --If something major has to be changed and as a result, axes a major project, this would adversely effect the "image" of the language.
>>
>> Maybe one should just draw a line in the sand and call it "1.0", and fix the shortcomings in "the first service pack" thereafter.
>>
>
> I've got to ask myself "Is the language ready for 1.0, and would this really help the language grow right now?". I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards "yes" for the first part and "no" for the 2nd at this point. And there's no turning back from the big v1.0 release, being that "1.0" seems to carry so much weight with people regarding what decisions are made for a progamming language from that point on.
>
> That said, I'm often wrong in such matters otherwise I wouldn't be here, but in Bermuda or somewhere warm sipping a beer on the beach. I just had to add my $0.02 worth for consideration <g>
>
> 

Kris wrote:
> Since we're now discussing a 1.0 release, I'd like to toss something into the pot:
> 
> 1) consider calling it 2.0 ~ we all know the ramifications, and D has been around long enough to deserve that status.


Some people disagree about calling it 1.0, and you want to call it 2.0?

People are going to wonder where D 1.0 dissapeared to, and then promptly laugh at our hubris.


> 
> 2) whenever the first official, non-beta release is made, it should have addressed all or most of the little niggly things that would be hard to clean up later (once people start to use them). This is quite different from the various features people wish to see included ~ instead, it's a little bit of insurance that the /following/ release will not upset users in some manner. It helps to smooth the release cycle and generates confidence.
> 
> It's up to Walter, of course, but it might be useful to collect a list of these little niggly things? In case something is forgotten?
>

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

> - Kris
> 

"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:dnm6pb$lps$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message news:dnm162$gni$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I'll also update my delegate/member function pointer article on CodeProject and put a big reference to D at the end of it. Since it seems to have been the most popular programming article of 2004 (the web page is now approaching 200 000 hits), it might direct a few people here.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> I don't think D needs any marketing. It just needs more visibility. No one will use it if they've never heard of it.
>
> It's my experience that most programmers won't look at D the first time
> they
> run across it, or the second time, or the tenth time. But seeing reference
> to it constantly eventually convinces people that it is real, and worth
> looking at.
I found it worthwhile when I discovered char[]... it just put me on cloud 9 as far as strings go.  Then, when I discovered easy to use classes, a real good (compared to everything else) library, and easy sockets?  I fell in love.
>
> 

"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus@gmail.com> wrote
> Kris wrote:
>> Since we're now discussing a 1.0 release, I'd like to toss something into the pot:
>>
>> 1) consider calling it 2.0 ~ we all know the ramifications, and D has been around long enough to deserve that status.
>
>
> Some people disagree about calling it 1.0, and you want to call it 2.0?
>
> People are going to wonder where D 1.0 dissapeared to, and then promptly laugh at our hubris.


Well ~ the comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek :-)

Yet, it feels like I've been using an "official" release for ages <g>

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:40:53 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> Here's a lively debate over in comp.lang.c++.moderated people might be interested in:

"The Debate" is also continuing in other forums, in one way or another. Here is a quote from the Euphoria Language forum ...

>> There is no way D could be as fast as highly optimized C. D is loaded with features, including garbage collection (which slows things down a little). I suppose D looks superior to C and C++, but looks more like feces against Euphoria in most cases.

I don't regard this as a well thought out opinion, but it does show that D is in front of other audiences as well as the C/C++ crowd.

For the record, I think Euphoria *and* D are brilliant languages, but they address different problem spaces. Comparing them with each other is a pointless exercise; a bit like comparing Mack trucks with Ferrari racing cars, both are great but you wouldn't want one trying to do the job of the other.

Euphoria also uses garbage collection, has static and dynamic typing, and is interpreted; but as far as interpreters go, it is extremely fast. It takes about 3-4 times longer to run D's Word Count sample program than D does.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"A learning experience is one of those things that says,
 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.'" - D.N. Adams
14/12/2005 1:37:15 PM

Dave wrote:

> What D has done in four years is remarkable when you consider how much was done by one person mostly on free time. C++ had a lot of help from what was then probably the premier CS research organization in the world, and Java had a large and rapidly growing tech. giant behind it.

I think it could have gotten even further in the "bazaar", but also
that the D design and implementation is more coherent as it is now...

But if Walter hadn't opened up the implementation (i.e. GPL), then I
for one wouldn't be here. Mostly since there would not *be* a gdcmac ?

> And there's no turning back from the big v1.0 release, being that "1.0" seems to carry so much weight with people regarding what
> decisions are made for a  progamming language from that point on.

Seems like most software these days go through the stages "beta", "1.0"
(a.k.a. Public Beta) and then end up being somewhat final in 1.1 or so.

Then again, some - like Google - make it a sport to just stay in Beta...

> That said, I'm often wrong in such matters otherwise I wouldn't be here, but in Bermuda or somewhere warm sipping a beer on the beach. 

Well, this is the internet...
Who says you couldn't be, and still read digitalmars.D.announce ? :-)

--anders

clayasaurus wrote:

>> Since we're now discussing a 1.0 release, I'd like to toss something into the pot:
>>
>> 1) consider calling it 2.0 ~ we all know the ramifications, and D has been around long enough to deserve that status.
> 
> Some people disagree about calling it 1.0, and you want to call it 2.0?
> 
> People are going to wonder where D 1.0 dissapeared to, and then promptly laugh at our hubris.

I think it should follow the lead of another celestial-body-named company, and rename the next release "DMD 142". That's sure to leave
Java in the mud, as they've only gotten to 5 in all this time... :-P

Seriously, it's not so much about numbers as about alpha/beta/release ?

--anders

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> IMHO, this has already happened... As D seems to be pretty fixed ?

My view is that D's had some positively *huge* breaking changes in the last couple of months, including but not limited to:

* Type inference (the most major change; IMO should have been in D 2.0)
* $ symbol in arrays
* New features in Phobos
* Refactoring and other changes in Phobos
* String postfix literals
* === and !== replaced with is and !is
* .size replaced with .sizeof

All of these changes are non-backwards compatible, and an even more major change is coming (stack allocation). To me this hardly seems 'fixed'. If C# or Java would keep changing in this pace, nobody would dare to use them.

The pace of breaking changes in D is *fast*, even when comparing against other alpha-stage languages. This is visible in e.g. GDC's constant struggle keep up with DMD.

Given all this I don't blame anyone for not daring to use D in any major project. Projects whose timespan may be several years need such a level of fixture that D cannot offer in the foreseeable future.

-- 
Niko Korhonen
SW Developer

Niko Korhonen wrote:

>> IMHO, this has already happened... As D seems to be pretty fixed ?
> 
> My view is that D's had some positively *huge* breaking changes in the last couple of months, including but not limited to:
> 
> * Type inference (the most major change; IMO should have been in D 2.0)
> * $ symbol in arrays
> * New features in Phobos
> * Refactoring and other changes in Phobos
> * String postfix literals
> * === and !== replaced with is and !is
> * .size replaced with .sizeof
> 
> All of these changes are non-backwards compatible, and an even more major change is coming (stack allocation). To me this hardly seems 'fixed'.

AAs have also been through some dramatic changes, with the "in" etc ?
And there's still a few "major annoyances" left in the D language...

Actually I meant that it doesn't seem like any of my changes suggested earlier is going to make it into D, as it has been pretty "decided"...
But you are right of course, there has been a lot of such new changes.
And no way to make the new code backwards-compatible (e.g. #if/#endif)

I just check in every 6 months or so, to see if it has been released :-)
Hasn't been in the last year, but maybe in another 6 months it could ?

> If C# or Java would keep changing in this pace, nobody would dare to use them.

Java has done a few of such major changes, but it has been over time...
And each time, you could still use the previous version while migrating.

I think the idea and spirit of what I was trying to say that what we
have now in D should be good enough to "freeze features" on and start
fixing the bugs and get it released once - *then* move on to the 2.0 ?
At least get the specification finalized, while fixing compiler bugs.


But maybe that has already happened, only that it was called e.g. 0.110
(haven't really kept a track of when the major changes were implemented,
anyone feel like writing a summary history of D from the DMD changelog?)
I started last year with DMD 0.102, so I wasn't here in "the two-digits"

> The pace of breaking changes in D is *fast*, even when comparing against other alpha-stage languages. This is visible in e.g. GDC's constant struggle keep up with DMD.

True. And GDC has also had some *major* new features added, like new
garbage collection, inline assembler, GCC 4.0, new platforms, etc...

Another incredible one-man accomplishment! (GDC, by David Friedman)

> Given all this I don't blame anyone for not daring to use D in any major project. Projects whose timespan may be several years need such a level of fixture that D cannot offer in the foreseeable future.

That, and linking to some libraries, has forced me to use C++ as well.
:-(

I will still try to move my old C/C++ library over to D, but it doesn't
use too many advanced D features so it hasn't been bitten by the above.

--anders