On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 14:05:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Well, IIRC, the old D1 website made a point of D1 being a simplified C++ family language, and having no templates was essential to that simplicity philosophy.

D1 has templates its entire life. Remember, D1 was created just a few months before D2.

D itself got templates in more-or-less the modern form we have today in January 2004, release #77.

It had templates in any form since D 0.40, released Sep 8, 2002. So even if you incorrectly pretend "D1" = any D version prior making strings immutable (which was D 2.06; Oct 2007. Jan 2007 is when D1 came out btw), it is still *almost* accurate to say D has always had templates, since D's initial public release was December 2001, less than a year before templates were added.

It is true that Walter was skeptical about templates in the olden day, but it had nothing to do with D2.

> D2 was a pretty radical change in philosophy in my opinion.

The history is easy to look up, you don't need to have uninformed opinions.

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 14:23:35 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 14:05:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> [...]
>
> D1 has templates its entire life. Remember, D1 was created just a few months before D2.
>
> D itself got templates in more-or-less the modern form we have today in January 2004, release #77.
>
> It had templates in any form since D 0.40, released Sep 8, 2002. So even if you incorrectly pretend "D1" = any D version prior making strings immutable (which was D 2.06; Oct 2007. Jan 2007 is when D1 came out btw), it is still *almost* accurate to say D has always had templates, since D's initial public release was December 2001, less than a year before templates were added.
>
> It is true that Walter was skeptical about templates in the olden day, but it had nothing to do with D2.
>
>> [...]
>
> The history is easy to look up, you don't need to have uninformed opinions.

Adam is right, D2 big shift was all about const/immutable for concurrency, as concurrency at that time was the main opportunity goal not to be missed.

/P

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 15:29:24 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 15:13:59 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> Adam is right, D2 big shift was all about const/immutable for concurrency, as concurrency at that time was the main opportunity goal not to be missed.
>
> That is probably technically correct. I've always used D1 to refer to "simple D" and D2 to refer to modern D maximising meta-programming. Never seen "D0" used anywhere before, but if that is needed to avoid noise, then so be it. Let me use that from now on. (You usually include version 0.x in the first version of a language, so this is a very odd thing to require.)
>
> Vision 1: simple language that can compete with C++ in performance
>
> Vision 2: language that can outdo C++ in meta-programming
>
> There is a drastic shift in complexity and development focus. I was attracted to "Vision 1", not "Vision 2". The language I started to use followed "Vision 1", not "Vision 2". "Vision 1" could have reached a polished state if "Vision 2" had not come along.
>
> I am perplexed that anyone could disagree with this viewpoint.

I'm here since a LONG time [1] and at that time pre D1 was already used in production.

Walter pragmatic way of moving shined in the early stage, but early stage is the moment to experiment things. So you are right, *that* D was the simple language that could compete with C++, given the state of C++ (and processing power) in early 2000.

D2 had a vision, the D Programming Language. Something went wrong with it, something went really really well, and I was for a long time on the "break the compatibility" bandwagon and "fix the language".

Nowadays I agree with Adam, D is in a stagnant history phase, not that is bad (see Elm, for example), it's an opportunity, leverage it. Just stop experimenting, and go for D2 as LTS as it is.

[1] https://forum.dlang.org/post/40BB3D47.9030007@inwind.it

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 05:21:40PM +0000, Guillaume Piolat via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 08:55:27 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
> > Is there a set of features that, when fully working, will mean that D2 is now finished? Or will it forever be in a state of ongoing feature development?
> > 
> > We all know that properly finishing and polishing the last 10% of a software project takes 90% of the time. Is there a timescale for that?  What platforms will it support?

Even C has not stopped evolving. And C++.  Why should we stop now?  The time when D stops evolving is the time it's dead.


> What is an example of a successful language that would stop feature development?
> 
> If D would stop feature development, it wouldn't solve the "billion posts" problem of people not vested in D complaining loudly in the D forums.

I suspect these are just the vocal minority. The rest of the happy D users are too busy actually writing code than debating on the forums.


T

-- 
Meat: euphemism for dead animal. -- Flora