Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

> A lot of the things I've seen is people having issues making codebases
> compatible with both D1 and D2, which really _is_ a royal pain.

I tried keeping the same codebase compatible with D1 and D2,
Phobos and Tango, GDC and DMD, and still remain portable too.
(without changing or generating the code with a preprocessor,
and without copying / pasting and replacing "version(linux)")

I don't think I will try that again :-)

--anders

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:00:05 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:


> 2. Use an external text processing facility to generate the two source code versions.

Yes, this is the path I've now chosen too. Text macro processing is not dead yet :-)

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:00:05 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> 
>> 2. Use an external text processing facility to generate the two source code versions.
> 
> Yes, this is the path I've now chosen too. Text macro processing is not
> dead yet :-) 
> 

Actually, if you could produce a simple page on how to do this, we can standardize on it.

Walter Bright wrote:

> Derek Parnell wrote:
>> I tried coding in D2 but a lot of that code is going to need significant rework when the cabal have finalized their deliberations,
> 
> I doubt that it would be significant. The time I've invested in converting D1 to D2 code has been trivial.

But is your code really representative? As far as Tango goes, it is several times more code in addition to apparently using a wider range of the language.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Derek Parnell wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:54:47 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> bobef wrote:
>>>> category 3) will be forced to break their code because
>>>> once D2 is declared stable D1 will probably be declared deprecated
>>> No, I intend to support D1 as long as there is interest in it.
>>
>> I'm no longer using D at all. I've lost interest in D1 as D2 looks to be
>> much, much better. However D2 is a currently whirlwind of uncertainty. I'd
>> love to use some parts of Tango but not D1. I like Phobos (but admit it
>> still has too many warts and omissions) but D2 is just not worth my time
>> yet. I tried coding in D2 but a lot of that code is going to need
>> significant rework when the cabal have finalized their deliberations, which
>> look like being at least 12 months away.
> 
> One way or another D2 will have to be done around April, when TDPL comes along.
> 
> Andrei

Do you expect the concurrency features to be ready by then? (By ready I mean something that is usable and well though-out, not just the first and experimental iterations of a design)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

== Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > Derek Parnell wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:54:47 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>
> >>> bobef wrote:
> >>>> category 3) will be forced to break their code because
> >>>> once D2 is declared stable D1 will probably be declared deprecated
> >>> No, I intend to support D1 as long as there is interest in it.
> >>
> >> I'm no longer using D at all. I've lost interest in D1 as D2 looks to be
> >> much, much better. However D2 is a currently whirlwind of uncertainty.
> >> I'd
> >> love to use some parts of Tango but not D1. I like Phobos (but admit it
> >> still has too many warts and omissions) but D2 is just not worth my time
> >> yet. I tried coding in D2 but a lot of that code is going to need
> >> significant rework when the cabal have finalized their deliberations,
> >> which
> >> look like being at least 12 months away.
> >
> > One way or another D2 will have to be done around April, when TDPL comes along.
> >
> > Andrei

Sorry for the stupid question, but I'm really, really curious.  What the heck is TDPL and why is it relevant to D2?

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:12:57 +0400, dsimcha <dsimcha@yahoo.com> wrote:

> == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail)'s article
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> > Derek Parnell wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:54:47 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> bobef wrote:
>> >>>> category 3) will be forced to break their code because
>> >>>> once D2 is declared stable D1 will probably be declared deprecated
>> >>> No, I intend to support D1 as long as there is interest in it.
>> >>
>> >> I'm no longer using D at all. I've lost interest in D1 as D2 looks  
>> to be
>> >> much, much better. However D2 is a currently whirlwind of  
>> uncertainty.
>> >> I'd
>> >> love to use some parts of Tango but not D1. I like Phobos (but admit  
>> it
>> >> still has too many warts and omissions) but D2 is just not worth my  
>> time
>> >> yet. I tried coding in D2 but a lot of that code is going to need
>> >> significant rework when the cabal have finalized their deliberations,
>> >> which
>> >> look like being at least 12 months away.
>> >
>> > One way or another D2 will have to be done around April, when TDPL  
>> comes
>> > along.
>> >
>> > Andrei
>
> Sorry for the stupid question, but I'm really, really curious.  What the heck is
> TDPL and why is it relevant to D2?
>

*LOL* That's "The D Programming Language" book in works by Andrei Alexandrescu (and co?).
Due to ship in April, make sure you book that one!

D2 should become stable by then.

Note to Andrei: it was previously stated on your site that TDPL ships around October'08. Now it's better but not too much: it's Aprin'09.

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, dsimcha <dsimcha@yahoo.com> wrote:
> == Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail)'s article
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> > Derek Parnell wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:54:47 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> bobef wrote:
>> >>>> category 3) will be forced to break their code because
>> >>>> once D2 is declared stable D1 will probably be declared deprecated
>> >>> No, I intend to support D1 as long as there is interest in it.
>> >>
>> >> I'm no longer using D at all. I've lost interest in D1 as D2 looks to be
>> >> much, much better. However D2 is a currently whirlwind of uncertainty.
>> >> I'd
>> >> love to use some parts of Tango but not D1. I like Phobos (but admit it
>> >> still has too many warts and omissions) but D2 is just not worth my time
>> >> yet. I tried coding in D2 but a lot of that code is going to need
>> >> significant rework when the cabal have finalized their deliberations,
>> >> which
>> >> look like being at least 12 months away.
>> >
>> > One way or another D2 will have to be done around April, when TDPL comes along.
>> >
>> > Andrei
>
> Sorry for the stupid question, but I'm really, really curious.  What the heck is TDPL and why is it relevant to D2?
>
>

The D Programming Language, a book Andrei and Walter are apparently working on, and Andrei wants the language to be fixed by the time it comes out so the book doesn't become outdated before it's published.

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:54:47 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>>> bobef wrote:
>>>>> category 3) will be forced to break their code because
>>>>> once D2 is declared stable D1 will probably be declared deprecated
>>>> No, I intend to support D1 as long as there is interest in it.
>>>
>>> I'm no longer using D at all. I've lost interest in D1 as D2 looks to be
>>> much, much better. However D2 is a currently whirlwind of uncertainty. I'd
>>> love to use some parts of Tango but not D1. I like Phobos (but admit it
>>> still has too many warts and omissions) but D2 is just not worth my time
>>> yet. I tried coding in D2 but a lot of that code is going to need
>>> significant rework when the cabal have finalized their deliberations, which
>>> look like being at least 12 months away.
>>
>> One way or another D2 will have to be done around April, when TDPL comes along.
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Do you expect the concurrency features to be ready by then? (By ready I mean something that is usable and well though-out, not just the first and experimental iterations of a design)

In the words of a car mechanic: we'll be done in six months, even if we had to work on it for a year.

Andrei

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> Note to Andrei: it was previously stated on your site that TDPL ships around October'08. Now it's better but not too much: it's Aprin'09.

Doubly thank you, (re)fixed.

Andrei