Now that 1.00 is out. When can we expect the next release? And what features would be in? Concurrency support? GUI support? Network support?  etc.. Would be nice to know what to expect.

vtp

vtp wrote:
> Now that 1.00 is out. When can we expect the next release? And what features would be in? Concurrency support? GUI support? Network support?  etc.. Would be nice to know what to expect.
> 
> vtp


Perhaps 1.00 should be stabilized?  And then maybe some attention to performance.  ie The boring house cleaning jobs.  This would go a long way towards retaining D users.

-Joel

Yes.  Stabilization should be top priority since there seem to still be many outstanding bugs.

However, performance is a big area that isn't necessarily a "boring house cleaning" exercise.  For example, the most significant improvement to performance IMO would be to make GC precise.  This would require new reflection features in the compiler as it would have to know which areas of memory are pointers and which are not.  However, I think you may be refering to performance enhancements to the backend, which would also be welcome.

-Craig

"janderson" <askme@me.com> wrote in message news:enjctk$qeq$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> vtp wrote:
>> Now that 1.00 is out. When can we expect the next release? And what features would be in? Concurrency support? GUI support? Network support? etc.. Would be nice to know what to expect.
>>
>> vtp
>
>
> Perhaps 1.00 should be stabilized?  And then maybe some attention to performance.  ie The boring house cleaning jobs.  This would go a long way towards retaining D users.
>
> -Joel

Craig Black wrote:
> Yes.  Stabilization should be top priority since there seem to still be many outstanding bugs.
> 
> However, performance is a big area that isn't necessarily a "boring house cleaning" exercise.  For example, the most significant improvement to performance IMO would be to make GC precise.  This would require new reflection features in the compiler as it would have to know which areas of memory are pointers and which are not.

An easy fix that should help is to key on element size.  This would at least prevent blocks containing elements less than pointer size from being scanned (most notably char strings).  In fact, Tango already has this behavior by default.  If I had more free time I'd submit a patch to Walter for Phobos--it really isn't a tremendously difficult change aside from sorting out how the GC interface should be modified to support it.


Sean