I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might be of more general interest.

With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it time to move on to D version 3.0?

It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.

Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.

I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.

Paul

== Quote from Paul D. Anderson (paul.d.removethis.anderson@comcast.andthis.net)'s
article
> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might
be of more general interest.
> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
time to move on to D version 3.0?
> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
> Paul

My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake to declare a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to be made.  D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a stable spec.  However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and will likely have little future once D2 is finalized.  I don't think the same mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.

"Paul D. Anderson" <paul.d.removethis.anderson@comcast.andthis.net> wrote in message news:gd07uh$2ckt$1@digitalmars.com...
>I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might be of more general interest.
>
> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it time to move on to D version 3.0?
>
> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
>
> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
>
> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
>

Maybe, but I'd hate to see the D1/D2 divide end up becoming a D1/D2/D3 divide.

dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Paul D. Anderson (paul.d.removethis.anderson@comcast.andthis.net)'s
> article
>> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might
> be of more general interest.
>> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
> time to move on to D version 3.0?
>> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
> between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
>> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
> fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
>> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
> occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
>> Paul
> 
> My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake to declare
> a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to be
> made.  D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a
> stable spec.  However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and
> will likely have little future once D2 is finalized.  I don't think the same
> mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec
> when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.

I believe the D1 spec is stable enough, only that dmd is not stable. The only spec-relating changed to 1.0 since Jun 17th (v2.000 was released) are:

* Added aliases string, wstring, and dstring to ease compatiblity with 2.0. (v1.016)
*  Added __VENDOR__ and __VERSION__. (v1.017)
* The .init property for a variable is now based on its type, not its initializer. (v1.017, breaking)
* Added 0x78 Codeview extension for type dchar. (v1.019)
* Added extern (System) (v1.019)
* Multiple module static constructors/destructors allowed. (v1.021)
* Data items in static data segment >= 16 bytes in size are now paragraph aligned. (v1.023)
*  Re-enabled auto interfaces. (v1.027)

KennyTM~ wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
>> == Quote from Paul D. Anderson (paul.d.removethis.anderson@comcast.andthis.net)'s
>> article
>>> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might
>> be of more general interest.
>>> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
>> time to move on to D version 3.0?
>>> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
>> between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
>>> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
>> fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
>>> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
>> occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
>>> Paul
>>
>> My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake to declare
>> a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to be
>> made.  D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a
>> stable spec.  However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and
>> will likely have little future once D2 is finalized.  I don't think the same
>> mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec
>> when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.
> 
> I believe the D1 spec is stable enough, only that dmd is not stable. The only spec-relating changed to 1.0 since Jun 17th (v2.000 was released) are:
> 
> * Added aliases string, wstring, and dstring to ease compatiblity with 2.0. (v1.016)
> *  Added __VENDOR__ and __VERSION__. (v1.017)
> * The .init property for a variable is now based on its type, not its initializer. (v1.017, breaking)
> * Added 0x78 Codeview extension for type dchar. (v1.019)
> * Added extern (System) (v1.019)
> * Multiple module static constructors/destructors allowed. (v1.021)
> * Data items in static data segment >= 16 bytes in size are now paragraph aligned. (v1.023)
> *  Re-enabled auto interfaces. (v1.027)
> 
> 

I hit the wrong button :)

    *  Added compile time error for comparing class types against null (v1.028)
    * Added version identifier D_PIC when -fPIC switch is used (v1.031)
    * Added .__vptr and .__monitor properties for class objects for use in the internal runtime library (v1.032)
    * Now supports array operations (v1.034, which Walter claims "It should have been there")

So there is probably just one breaking change (.init), and others are more likely bug fixes or really minor enhancements (__VENDOR__?), so I could say the spec itself is pretty stable.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Paul D. Anderson" <paul.d.removethis.anderson@comcast.andthis.net> wrote in message news:gd07uh$2ckt$1@digitalmars.com...
>> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might be of more general interest.
>>
>> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it time to move on to D version 3.0?
>>
>> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
>>
>> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
>>
>> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
>>
> 
> Maybe, but I'd hate to see the D1/D2 divide end up becoming a D1/D2/D3 divide. 
> 
> 

This looks kinda like the Debian stable/testing/unstable branches.

== Quote from KennyTM~ (kennytm@gmail.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > == Quote from Paul D. Anderson (paul.d.removethis.anderson@comcast.andthis.net)'s
> > article
> >> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might
> > be of more general interest.
> >> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
> > time to move on to D version 3.0?
> >> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
> > between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
> >> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
> > fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
> >> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
> > occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
> >> Paul
> >
> > My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake to declare a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to be made.  D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a stable spec.  However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and will likely have little future once D2 is finalized.  I don't think the same mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.
> I believe the D1 spec is stable enough, only that dmd is not stable. The
> only spec-relating changed to 1.0 since Jun 17th (v2.000 was released) are:
> * Added aliases string, wstring, and dstring to ease compatiblity with
> 2.0. (v1.016)
> *  Added __VENDOR__ and __VERSION__. (v1.017)
> * The .init property for a variable is now based on its type, not its
> initializer. (v1.017, breaking)
> * Added 0x78 Codeview extension for type dchar. (v1.019)
> * Added extern (System) (v1.019)
> * Multiple module static constructors/destructors allowed. (v1.021)
> * Data items in static data segment >= 16 bytes in size are now
> paragraph aligned. (v1.023)
> *  Re-enabled auto interfaces. (v1.027)

Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I wasn't referring to the stability of the D1 spec, but the spec for the D trunk.  Yes, on the "trunk spec", in this case D2, breaking changes are fine to a degree, but D1 and D2 appear to be diverging significantly.  My point is that it might have been premature to declare a meaningful stable branch that doesn't end up as almost a separate language from the trunk.

dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from KennyTM~ (kennytm@gmail.com)'s article
>> dsimcha wrote:
>>> == Quote from Paul D. Anderson (paul.d.removethis.anderson@comcast.andthis.net)'s
>>> article
>>>> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might
>>> be of more general interest.
>>>> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
>>> time to move on to D version 3.0?
>>>> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
>>> between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
>>>> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
>>> fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
>>>> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
>>> occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
>>>> Paul
>>> My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake to declare
>>> a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to be
>>> made.  D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a
>>> stable spec.  However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and
>>> will likely have little future once D2 is finalized.  I don't think the same
>>> mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec
>>> when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.
>> I believe the D1 spec is stable enough, only that dmd is not stable. The
>> only spec-relating changed to 1.0 since Jun 17th (v2.000 was released) are:
>> * Added aliases string, wstring, and dstring to ease compatiblity with
>> 2.0. (v1.016)
>> *  Added __VENDOR__ and __VERSION__. (v1.017)
>> * The .init property for a variable is now based on its type, not its
>> initializer. (v1.017, breaking)
>> * Added 0x78 Codeview extension for type dchar. (v1.019)
>> * Added extern (System) (v1.019)
>> * Multiple module static constructors/destructors allowed. (v1.021)
>> * Data items in static data segment >= 16 bytes in size are now
>> paragraph aligned. (v1.023)
>> *  Re-enabled auto interfaces. (v1.027)
> 
> Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I wasn't referring to the stability of the D1
> spec, but the spec for the D trunk.  Yes, on the "trunk spec", in this case D2,
> breaking changes are fine to a degree, but D1 and D2 appear to be diverging
> significantly.  My point is that it might have been premature to declare a
> meaningful stable branch that doesn't end up as almost a separate language from
> the trunk.

OK. I see what you mean then.

But the most painful transition from D1 to D2 is just fixing those invariant/const stuff I think, but other than that it is quite easy to change.

At least easier than VB6 -> VB.NET. :p

(I'm not saying D2 is back-compat, though.)

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:35:45 -0400, Paul D. Anderson wrote:

> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might be of more general interest.
> 
> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it time to move on to D version 3.0?
> 
> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
> 
> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
> 
> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.

There is a sort of precedent. Windows 1.0 was a proof-of-concept edition, Windows 2.0 was forgettable, and it was not until Windows 3.0 that is became usable.

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

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:35:45 -0400, Paul D. Anderson wrote:
> 
>> I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might be of more general interest.
>>
>> With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it time to move on to D version 3.0?
>>
>> It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
>>
>> Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
>>
>> I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
> 
> There is a sort of precedent. Windows 1.0 was a proof-of-concept edition,
> Windows 2.0 was forgettable, and it was not until Windows 3.0 that is
> became usable. 

Wouldn't mind if those involved would make comparable amounts of money :o).

Andrei