Hello everybody.

With DMD 0.173 I've seen more than 100 versions of the D compiler (since september 2003). Three years ago it was my perfect language, and now it's more than perfect!!

I've used it in some little projects just for fun ;-), but not for 'complex' applications.

Well, my post it's about version 1.00 because I'm afraid that the developvent is in a never-ending cycle of new features and polishing, without a clear end.

Now, D language is much better than C, C++, java, python, ruby, c#, etc. It is true. I think we should wait for v2.00 to add more features. It's time to start with the improvements of the libraries, DTL, classes, docs, etc.

I'm going to start a new project in my job (a web application). Probably,
it'll be done in PHP, but I think that D (as language) it's well suited for
this, except that it hasn't the libraries/classes (CGI, HTTP, HTML, database,
...) and now it's a 'moving target'.

Please, think about this, seriously, we, the people that likes D, are losing the oportunity window ...

Best regards.

    Samuel.

Samuel MV wrote:
> 
> Well, my post it's about version 1.00 because I'm afraid that the developvent
> is in a never-ending cycle of new features and polishing, without a clear end.

I kind of feel that way too.

> I'm going to start a new project in my job (a web application). Probably,
> it'll be done in PHP, but I think that D (as language) it's well suited for
> this, except that it hasn't the libraries/classes (CGI, HTTP, HTML, database,
> ....) and now it's a 'moving target'.

I'm hoping that at some point the D feature list will freeze and the compiler will branch, so the existing version will enter maintenance mode and the new version will be used for new features.  It means more work for Walter but fewer headaches for us.  But I disagree that this is currently preventing library development.  The current feature list is pretty solid, and the new features (ie. variadric templates) are not "must haves" for library work.  Implicit template function instantiation was far more important IMO, and that has gotten to the point where it's fairly usable, assuming a few workarounds for overloading.


Sean

I've been fretting over the same thing, and a 'moving target' describes it well.

With all the new additions recently I stopped holding my breath, I figure at this rate it'll be another 3 years for a 1.0.

Heres to hoping,
Charlie



Samuel MV wrote:
> Hello everybody.
> 
> With DMD 0.173 I've seen more than 100 versions of the D compiler (since
> september 2003). Three years ago it was my perfect language, and now it's more
> than perfect!!
> 
> I've used it in some little projects just for fun ;-), but not for 'complex'
> applications.
> 
> Well, my post it's about version 1.00 because I'm afraid that the developvent
> is in a never-ending cycle of new features and polishing, without a clear end.
> 
> Now, D language is much better than C, C++, java, python, ruby, c#, etc. It is
> true. I think we should wait for v2.00 to add more features. It's time to
> start with the improvements of the libraries, DTL, classes, docs, etc.
> 
> I'm going to start a new project in my job (a web application). Probably,
> it'll be done in PHP, but I think that D (as language) it's well suited for
> this, except that it hasn't the libraries/classes (CGI, HTTP, HTML, database,
> ...) and now it's a 'moving target'.
> 
> Please, think about this, seriously, we, the people that likes D, are losing
> the oportunity window ...
> 
> Best regards.
> 
>     Samuel.

Charlie wrote:
> I've been fretting over the same thing, and a 'moving target' describes it well.
> 
> With all the new additions recently I stopped holding my breath, I figure at this rate it'll be another 3 years for a 1.0.

But isn't every language a moving target? Doesn't it make sense to just start using it?

The other languages just move much slower ;).

Its not that new releases break old code ( though it sometimes does ) , its that when new features are added - the old code needs to be refactored to take advantage of the new features.

I like that D is cutting edge and trying things that haven't been done before, but to develop any lasting code developers need some sort of agreed upon language feature set , so it doesn't feel like we're in a never ending refactoring circle ( this is especially true of library builders I would think ).

Why not devote a few releases to getting a 1.0 , and continue with a developmental branch , working its way to 2.0, best of both worlds.  I don't want to hinder D  development, and if it takes another few years to get a 1.0 so be it, but I think building up a solid base of existing code is going to be important to getting D into the mainstream.

Charlie

Walter Bright wrote:
> Charlie wrote:
>> I've been fretting over the same thing, and a 'moving target' describes it well.
>>
>> With all the new additions recently I stopped holding my breath, I figure at this rate it'll be another 3 years for a 1.0.
> 
> But isn't every language a moving target? Doesn't it make sense to just start using it?

Charlie wrote:
> The other languages just move much slower ;).
> 
> Its not that new releases break old code ( though it sometimes does ) , its that when new features are added - the old code needs to be refactored to take advantage of the new features.
> 
> I like that D is cutting edge and trying things that haven't been done before, but to develop any lasting code developers need some sort of agreed upon language feature set , so it doesn't feel like we're in a never ending refactoring circle ( this is especially true of library builders I would think ).
> 
> Why not devote a few releases to getting a 1.0 , and continue with a developmental branch , working its way to 2.0, best of both worlds.  I don't want to hinder D  development, and if it takes another few years to get a 1.0 so be it, but I think building up a solid base of existing code is going to be important to getting D into the mainstream.
> 
> Charlie
> 
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Charlie wrote:
>>
>>> I've been fretting over the same thing, and a 'moving target' describes it well.
>>>
>>> With all the new additions recently I stopped holding my breath, I figure at this rate it'll be another 3 years for a 1.0.
>>
>>
>> But isn't every language a moving target? Doesn't it make sense to just start using it?

In my opinion, if D branched into D 1.0 (stable) and D 2.0 (unstable), a large enough chunk of people would continue to use the unstable branch that everybody else would be snowballed in by dependencies et cetera. Net accomplishment: Nothing.

 - Gregor Richards

Gregor Richards wrote:
> 
> In my opinion, if D branched into D 1.0 (stable) and D 2.0 (unstable), a large enough chunk of people would continue to use the unstable branch that everybody else would be snowballed in by dependencies et cetera. Net accomplishment: Nothing.

hehe, you're probably right.  My only issue is that I don't want the introduction of new features to break existing functionality.  So long as that's a pretty reasonable guarantee, I'm all for a single unified compiler release.


Sean

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:31:26 +0200, Walter Bright <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Charlie wrote:
>> I've been fretting over the same thing, and a 'moving target' describes it well.
>>  With all the new additions recently I stopped holding my breath, I figure at this rate it'll be another 3 years for a 1.0.
>
> But isn't every language a moving target? Doesn't it make sense to just start using it?

For most of us D is the spare time language, unfortunately - just because it's name is 0.x! I'm sure that the same compiler named 1.0 would change this into making D the  first option in many projects.

For instance, I made a small DWT replica of a SWT application we use at my company.
It's stable and faster, but it wasn't accepted in use because D is 0.x!
... people are superstitious this days

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Hi Walter, unfortunately, it's not so simple. Example:

1.- I make a new library/classes for web services (HTTP, XML, FCGI, ...) using DMD
0.173

2.- Someone start using my library for a comercial application (that ones that you
try to sell ;-)

3.- It's founded a bug that it's solved in DMD 0.180, version which also add some features that broke existing code.

4.- The library maker and the developer only have two options:
    a) Live with the bug.
    b) Refactorize library and application.

Not a nice situation. Here is my 'perfect' plan :)

1.- Find the 3/4 features/problems that you/we *really* need to solve *now* in D.

2.- Fix only that in november, december, and maybe january. Also bugs ...

3.- We have DMD 1.00, that it's going to have only bug fixes, and that it's the version that every library, production application, doc, DTL, etc. should use.

4.- Branch 2.0 it's planned for the next 4-5 years, when you have had time to test the language in a massive mainstream enviroment, with lots of complex applications.

Well, we have 'survived' with only C for more than 30 years, so what do you think about??? Thank you.

Best regards.

Tiberiu Gal wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:31:26 +0200, Walter Bright  <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
>> Charlie wrote:
>>
>>> I've been fretting over the same thing, and a 'moving target' describes  it well.
>>>  With all the new additions recently I stopped holding my breath, I  figure at this rate it'll be another 3 years for a 1.0.
>>
>>
>> But isn't every language a moving target? Doesn't it make sense to just  start using it?
> 
> 
> For most of us D is the spare time language, unfortunately - just because  it's name is 0.x! I'm sure that the same compiler named 1.0 would change  this into making D the  first option in many projects.
> 
> For instance, I made a small DWT replica of a SWT application we use at my  company.
> It's stable and faster, but it wasn't accepted in use because D is 0.x!
> ... people are superstitious this days

You may be right, but I have serious doubts that slapping a 1.0 label on D is going to make any difference to the superstitious folks in your company.  "Not 1.0" is just a convenient excuse for not straying from the beaten path.  If D becomes 1.0 they'll probably just change their tune to "Sorry, not a good enough tool-chain yet".  Most likely what they really mean is "Sorry, it's still not Java."  Managers prefer to play it safe when it comes to tool choices.  And can you blame them? Why should they go out on a limb and choose D when they can see examples every day in the trade rags of companies that have been successful with Java or C++?

Success for D has to come from the ground up with people like you using for their own little tools here and there, until eventually there's enough critical mass taht managers can't ignore it anymore.

I remember a guy that used Python in a company I worked for about 10 years ago.  I remeber thinking "Python?  whatever dude".   He just used it for perlish munging of things in our internal build system.  He used it because he liked it, and management didn't care how he did it as long as it got the job done.  Anyway ten years later big companies now pay attention to Python, but few people cared about it back then.  I don't think Python's 1.0 made much difference to anyone.  I didn't start really looking at it till 2.something.  But the number didn't have anything to do with it.  The reason was I started hearing about it from lots of different places.  It was buzz, networking, critical mass, or something else, but it was not a version number.

--bb