Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 12:51 me escribiste:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
> >But features that have
> >been tested in D2 and which are backwards compatible with D1?  Why
> >would anyone be against those?
> 
> Because then you lose the definition of what is D 1.0. I believe there is considerable value not only in a stable compiler, but a stable language definition.

What's wrong with calling this new language D 1.1 for example?

Again, did you ever saw how Python evolves? Really, it's really good.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
they wrap me up in the back of the trunk
packed with foam and blind drunk
they won't ever take me alive
cause they all drive killer cars

Jarrett Billingsley:
> 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 comes out so the book doesn't become outdated before it's published.

Is a book about a language becoming more important than the language itself now? Ah ah, this is very funny :o) I'm seeing stranger and stranger things in this newsgroup :-)

Bye,
bearophile

bearophile wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley:
>> 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 so the book doesn't become outdated before it's published.
> 
> Is a book about a language becoming more important than the language
> itself now? Ah ah, this is very funny :o) I'm seeing stranger and
> stranger things in this newsgroup :-)

I find it hard to not take this as malice. It's uncalled for, really. The point is that a publisher deadline is pretty hard. Missing one makes unhappy a lot of people who've done the logistics and marketing legwork in anticipation for the deadline.

So the book describing the language will have to be out on a schedule, and we'd of course like it to describe the language accurately, in particular not talk about features that aren't yet implemented.

The book is important maybe even in disproportion because we haven't published pretty much anything about a large body of work we've done, some of which is quite novel. David Wagner's citation of my slides is the first time I ever saw that a serious paper ever cited a slide deck. It's a testament to both the quality of our work and the lack of publications of it. I suggest people with an interest in writing to try their hand at writing articles on what they find noteworthy in D.


Andrei

Denis Koroskin wrote:

>> 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.

Shouldn't it be the TD2PL then ?

--anders

Andrei Alexandrescu:
> I find it hard to not take this as malice. It's uncalled for, really.

I know that having books on a language is a quite important mean to spread it. But the D2 language has to be finished when it's finished, and judging from the current discussions it may take one or more years. Speeding up its development process just for a book is wrong.


> I suggest people with an interest in writing to try their hand at writing articles on what they find noteworthy in D.

I've written probably 30+ blog articles, plus three articles, about D and related matters, and I'll keep doing it, I have introduced D to several people in my nation, including my bioinformatics laboratory, where we now use D where Python doesn't cut it.

Bye,
bearophile

Andrei Alexandrescu:
> I find it hard to not take this as malice. It's uncalled for, really.

Anyway, I am sorry for laughing. I'll try to keep a more rational stance next time.
I assume your books are good, and I'll probably buy your D book when it's finished. I like books, and if you need proof readers before the publishing I (and probably others here) may help. When Alex Martelli has written the Python cookbook books has asked for similar help to us, to me too.

Bye,
bearophile

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 12:51 me escribiste:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> But features that have
>>> been tested in D2 and which are backwards compatible with D1?  Why
>>> would anyone be against those?
>> Because then you lose the definition of what is D 1.0. I believe there is considerable value not only in a stable compiler, but a stable language definition.
> 
> What's wrong with calling this new language D 1.1 for example?

Nothing except I don't have a staff of hundreds to test and maintain 3 versions of D.


> Again, did you ever saw how Python evolves? Really, it's really good.


No, I haven't looked at it.

Walter Bright:
> Nothing except I don't have a staff of hundreds to test and maintain 3 versions of D.

Developing a compiler is hard, but maybe here there are people able and willing to do that. You may try asking...

Bye,
bearophile

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

>> What's wrong with calling this new language D 1.1 for example?
>
> Nothing except I don't have a staff of hundreds to test and maintain 3 versions of D.

*looks around*

You might not have a hired one, but I'm sure there'd be some interest in third parties maintaining it.

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Walter Bright, el 11 de octubre a las 12:51 me escribiste:
> >> Bill Baxter wrote:
> >>> But features that have
> >>> been tested in D2 and which are backwards compatible with D1?  Why
> >>> would anyone be against those?
> >> Because then you lose the definition of what is D 1.0. I believe there is considerable value not only in a stable compiler, but a stable language definition.
> >
> > What's wrong with calling this new language D 1.1 for example?
> Nothing except I don't have a staff of hundreds to test and maintain 3 versions of D.

Certainly understandable.  I wonder if someone could take GDC or LDC and the D1 and D2 front end sources, if they really wanted to, and create an unofficial D1.1 out of these?  If there's enough demand, this project, and a similar one for D2.1 to bridge D2 -> D3, might be worthwhile.

Note that I am *not* lobbying for a D1.1, and I personally am enjoying the
bleeding edge with D2 since most the code I write is just for internal use anyhow.
 I'm just suggesting how D1.1 could be done *if* it is done at all, rather than
implying that I think it's a particularly good idea.