Hans W. Uhlig wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> 
>> "Alex Burton" <alexibu@mac.com> wrote in message news:ftjfrg$24lu$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>>> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Alex Burton" <alexibu@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fti5dd$8h7$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how many lurkers like me are waiting for D 2.0s const system to be
>>>>> sorted out so that we can start using it.
>>>>> Experience shows that const is viral and you are either using it or not
>>>>> using it, and if libraries are using it, then you have to use it or you
>>>>> can't use the libraries.
>>>>> So I am not going to write a bunch of D 1.0 code until D 2.0's transitive
>>>>> const is fixed.
>>>>
>>>> What?  What does constness in D2 have anything to do with D1?
>>>>
>>> Knowing that fundamental changes to the language will come in the next version makes me hesitant to start writing lots of code in D1.
>>>
>>
>> The entire reason for making D1 _D1_ was so that people _would_ start using it.  It strikes me as very odd that the exact opposite seems to have happened.  You're not the only one to come to this decision.
>>
>> Personally I won't even consider D2 until it's frozen.  Furthermore just because you write code in D1 doesn't mean you'll _have_ to start using D2.
>>
> 
> I think this idea comes out of the same mindset as Java. You don't want to use something you know is going to be deprecated so soon down the road. Since D2.0 is an evolution of the product rather then a new language it is seen as the next version, why write something that wont work with the next version when you can write it for that version. I think its simply the fact that D2 isn't backwards compatible for a good chunk of things. Porting might end up being a bigger pain then simply waiting is.
> 
> I look forward to a lot of the changes in parallel processing and library support coming for D2 and am waiting to start a few projects until D2.0s feature set is frozen, till then I merely putter.

But nobody knows when that'll happen!

It might be months, but it might as well be late /next/ year.

And if you do regular (as in just normal) programmin in D1, chances that you'd have to work hard to later port it to D2 are small. Most of the things in D1 aren't going to change anyway. There'll mostly be just more things to the language.

Of course, some people don't buy a new cellular phone because next year you get a twice cooler one for half the price. Or they don't buy a new computer "because they're getting cheaper and stronger all the time, so for every month I push back buying one, I actually earn money".

You might as well skip waiting alltogether, because (as with any programming language) the day /will/ come when D is obsolete.

But then you shouldn't marry either, because one day she'll either divorce you or die.

In reality, you might get a lot of things done in D1 while waiting, and possibly even enjoy both the programming, and the results of it.

Georg Wrede Wrote:

> Hans W. Uhlig wrote:
> > Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> > 
> >> "Alex Burton" <alexibu@mac.com> wrote in message news:ftjfrg$24lu$1@digitalmars.com...
> >>
> >>> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Alex Burton" <alexibu@mac.com> wrote in message news:fti5dd$8h7$1@digitalmars.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>> I wonder how many lurkers like me are waiting for D 2.0s const
> >>>>> system to be
> >>>>> sorted out so that we can start using it.
> >>>>> Experience shows that const is viral and you are either using it or
> >>>>> not
> >>>>> using it, and if libraries are using it, then you have to use it or
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> can't use the libraries.
> >>>>> So I am not going to write a bunch of D 1.0 code until D 2.0's
> >>>>> transitive
> >>>>> const is fixed.
> >>>>
> >>>> What?  What does constness in D2 have anything to do with D1?
> >>>>
> >>> Knowing that fundamental changes to the language will come in the next version makes me hesitant to start writing lots of code in D1.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The entire reason for making D1 _D1_ was so that people _would_ start using it.  It strikes me as very odd that the exact opposite seems to have happened.  You're not the only one to come to this decision.
> >>
> >> Personally I won't even consider D2 until it's frozen.  Furthermore just because you write code in D1 doesn't mean you'll _have_ to start using D2.
> >>
> > 
> > I think this idea comes out of the same mindset as Java. You don't want to use something you know is going to be deprecated so soon down the road. Since D2.0 is an evolution of the product rather then a new language it is seen as the next version, why write something that wont work with the next version when you can write it for that version. I think its simply the fact that D2 isn't backwards compatible for a good chunk of things. Porting might end up being a bigger pain then simply waiting is.
> > 
> > I look forward to a lot of the changes in parallel processing and library support coming for D2 and am waiting to start a few projects until D2.0s feature set is frozen, till then I merely putter.
> 
> But nobody knows when that'll happen!
> 
> It might be months, but it might as well be late /next/ year.
> 
> And if you do regular (as in just normal) programmin in D1, chances that you'd have to work hard to later port it to D2 are small. Most of the things in D1 aren't going to change anyway. There'll mostly be just more things to the language.
> 
> Of course, some people don't buy a new cellular phone because next year you get a twice cooler one for half the price. Or they don't buy a new computer "because they're getting cheaper and stronger all the time, so for every month I push back buying one, I actually earn money".
> 
> You might as well skip waiting alltogether, because (as with any programming language) the day /will/ come when D is obsolete.
> 
> But then you shouldn't marry either, because one day she'll either divorce you or die.
> 
> In reality, you might get a lot of things done in D1 while waiting, and possibly even enjoy both the programming, and the results of it.

I know what you mean - you can't put off buying a computer till the next version comes out because there will always be a better one coming out.

But this is different, I think that the const system in D will either make it or break it.
Make it as in confirm it as a complete mature, state of the art language that is a serious option,
or break it as in the D community fragments into those unwilling to use the const system and stay on D 1 and those who are happy with the const system.

I am itching to start working in D instead of C++ (because of the hundreds of reasons that D is better than C++), but I want to reduce the risk that I migrate into a language that doesn't have a future. For me the successful implementation of const is when I think D will have no further problems.

At the moment I am just lurking on this list and occasionally trying to suggest reasonable alternatives to the current transitive const system which I think is unworkable and not of any benefit.

I actually use transitive const in C++ (implemented using smart pointers) but it is an opt in system, so that I can document and have the compiler check constness.

Alex

Georg Wrede wrote:
> Hans W. Uhlig wrote:
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>
>>> "Alex Burton" <alexibu@mac.com> wrote in message news:ftjfrg$24lu$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>>> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Alex Burton" <alexibu@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fti5dd$8h7$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how many lurkers like me are waiting for D 2.0s const system to be
>>>>>> sorted out so that we can start using it.
>>>>>> Experience shows that const is viral and you are either using it or not
>>>>>> using it, and if libraries are using it, then you have to use it or you
>>>>>> can't use the libraries.
>>>>>> So I am not going to write a bunch of D 1.0 code until D 2.0's transitive
>>>>>> const is fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> What?  What does constness in D2 have anything to do with D1?
>>>>>
>>>> Knowing that fundamental changes to the language will come in the next version makes me hesitant to start writing lots of code in D1.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The entire reason for making D1 _D1_ was so that people _would_ start using it.  It strikes me as very odd that the exact opposite seems to have happened.  You're not the only one to come to this decision.
>>>
>>> Personally I won't even consider D2 until it's frozen.  Furthermore just because you write code in D1 doesn't mean you'll _have_ to start using D2.
>>>
>>
>> I think this idea comes out of the same mindset as Java. You don't want to use something you know is going to be deprecated so soon down the road. Since D2.0 is an evolution of the product rather then a new language it is seen as the next version, why write something that wont work with the next version when you can write it for that version. I think its simply the fact that D2 isn't backwards compatible for a good chunk of things. Porting might end up being a bigger pain then simply waiting is.
>>
>> I look forward to a lot of the changes in parallel processing and library support coming for D2 and am waiting to start a few projects until D2.0s feature set is frozen, till then I merely putter.
> 
> But nobody knows when that'll happen!
> 
> It might be months, but it might as well be late /next/ year.
> 
> And if you do regular (as in just normal) programmin in D1, chances that you'd have to work hard to later port it to D2 are small. Most of the things in D1 aren't going to change anyway. There'll mostly be just more things to the language.
> 
> Of course, some people don't buy a new cellular phone because next year you get a twice cooler one for half the price. Or they don't buy a new computer "because they're getting cheaper and stronger all the time, so for every month I push back buying one, I actually earn money".
> 
> You might as well skip waiting alltogether, because (as with any programming language) the day /will/ come when D is obsolete.
> 
> But then you shouldn't marry either, because one day she'll either divorce you or die.
> 
> In reality, you might get a lot of things done in D1 while waiting, and possibly even enjoy both the programming, and the results of it.

I would disagree with this specifically in relation to const, enum and the current peices here as once the state of this entire concurrent programming underpinnings are complete I would both hope and assume the standard libraries would embrace them and become threadsafe, happy and productive(unless we are going to have two libraries, std and stdconst.

On your last note about waiting, D will eventually become obsolete, this is true. However we already have dangling in front of us a fall freeze date(tentative I know) which includes alot of features people are holding their breath over. D1.0 lacks alot of features people seem to want. Also code maintenance/expansion is easier when you have the widest selection of libraries to choose from. and 2 years from now it wont be D1 people are writing said libraries to. It will probobly be D2 or D3.
I think alot of people are waiting for the core of the language to be frozen where only new stuff gets mucked with. not existing keywords, precidents and features.

Hans W. Uhlig wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
> 
>> Hans W. Uhlig wrote:
>>
>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Alex Burton" <alexibu@mac.com> wrote in message news:ftjfrg$24lu$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alex Burton" <alexibu@mac.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fti5dd$8h7$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder how many lurkers like me are waiting for D 2.0s const system to be
>>>>>>> sorted out so that we can start using it.
>>>>>>> Experience shows that const is viral and you are either using it or not
>>>>>>> using it, and if libraries are using it, then you have to use it or you
>>>>>>> can't use the libraries.
>>>>>>> So I am not going to write a bunch of D 1.0 code until D 2.0's transitive
>>>>>>> const is fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What?  What does constness in D2 have anything to do with D1?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Knowing that fundamental changes to the language will come in the next version makes me hesitant to start writing lots of code in D1.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The entire reason for making D1 _D1_ was so that people _would_ start using it.  It strikes me as very odd that the exact opposite seems to have happened.  You're not the only one to come to this decision.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I won't even consider D2 until it's frozen.  Furthermore just because you write code in D1 doesn't mean you'll _have_ to start using D2.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think this idea comes out of the same mindset as Java. You don't want to use something you know is going to be deprecated so soon down the road. Since D2.0 is an evolution of the product rather then a new language it is seen as the next version, why write something that wont work with the next version when you can write it for that version. I think its simply the fact that D2 isn't backwards compatible for a good chunk of things. Porting might end up being a bigger pain then simply waiting is.
>>>
>>> I look forward to a lot of the changes in parallel processing and library support coming for D2 and am waiting to start a few projects until D2.0s feature set is frozen, till then I merely putter.
>>
>> But nobody knows when that'll happen!
>>
>> It might be months, but it might as well be late /next/ year.
>>
>> And if you do regular (as in just normal) programmin in D1, chances that you'd have to work hard to later port it to D2 are small. Most of the things in D1 aren't going to change anyway. There'll mostly be just more things to the language.
>>
>> Of course, some people don't buy a new cellular phone because next year you get a twice cooler one for half the price. Or they don't buy a new computer "because they're getting cheaper and stronger all the time, so for every month I push back buying one, I actually earn money".
>>
>> You might as well skip waiting alltogether, because (as with any programming language) the day /will/ come when D is obsolete.
>>
>> But then you shouldn't marry either, because one day she'll either divorce you or die.
>>
>> In reality, you might get a lot of things done in D1 while waiting, and possibly even enjoy both the programming, and the results of it.
> 
> I would disagree with this specifically in relation to const, enum and the current peices here as once the state of this entire concurrent programming underpinnings are complete I would both hope and assume the standard libraries would embrace them and become threadsafe, happy and productive(unless we are going to have two libraries, std and stdconst.
> 
> On your last note about waiting, D will eventually become obsolete, this is true. However we already have dangling in front of us a fall freeze date(tentative I know) which includes alot of features people are holding their breath over. D1.0 lacks alot of features people seem to want. Also code maintenance/expansion is easier when you have the widest selection of libraries to choose from. and 2 years from now it wont be D1 people are writing said libraries to. It will probobly be D2 or D3.
> I think alot of people are waiting for the core of the language to be frozen where only new stuff gets mucked with. not existing keywords, precidents and features.

When D2 is ready, then people start writing or porting libraries to it. That won't happen overnight. And until then, you can't start using it "at full strength".

And before those libraries are ready, already ideas and must-haves for D3 are widely discussed here and in other places. Those must-haves will feel just as important as the ones we want today, that is, you can't live without them.

So, again, you'd have to wait for the next D version, and its libraries, and by that time D4 will be in the pipelines. I'm sorry to say, that simply is the way things are. And that will never change. And we don't even want that to change. Other languages evolve, computers get faster and bigger, and what people take for granted as language properties changes too.

"Hans W. Uhlig" wrote
> I would disagree with this specifically in relation to const, enum and the current peices here as once the state of this entire concurrent programming underpinnings are complete I would both hope and assume the standard libraries would embrace them and become threadsafe, happy and productive(unless we are going to have two libraries, std and stdconst.

Note that pure functions, which are the only thing that allows automatic concurrency (thread safety can be had now in D1), is not planned AFAIK until D3.

D2 only brings us const as a tool for developers, not for thread safety.

-Steve