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.
> 
> Paul

I'd hate to see D2 be permanently anti-tango, especially since Tango developers favor a stable language. I'd prefer to see druntime, the fix to dynamic closures, etc in D2

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

Perhaps D should move to the Windows release naming model then.  D 2008 ;-)


Sean

Hello Sean,

> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
>> Wouldn't mind if those involved would make comparable amounts of
>> money :o).
>> 
> Perhaps D should move to the Windows release naming model then.  D
> 2008 ;-)
> 
> Sean
> 

Is that 2008 AD ? :) 

John Reimer wrote:
> Hello Sean,
> 
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> Wouldn't mind if those involved would make comparable amounts of
>>> money :o).
>>>
>> Perhaps D should move to the Windows release naming model then.  D
>> 2008 ;-)
>>
> 
> Is that 2008 AD ? :)

In today's economy, all bets are off ;-)


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't mind if those involved would make comparable amounts of money :o).
> 
> Perhaps D should move to the Windows release naming model then.  D 2008 ;-)
> 
> 
> Sean

Enterprise Edition.

Jason House Wrote:

> 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.
> > 
> > Paul
> 
> I'd hate to see D2 be permanently anti-tango, especially since Tango developers favor a stable language. I'd prefer to see druntime, the fix to dynamic closures, etc in D2

Good point. I think you're right.

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.
> 
> Paul

Personally I see this a horrible reason to make a divide. Others have mentioned a 1/2/3 divide issue, but frankly I don't see that as avoidable. Look at how many options you have for a GCC versions in a Linux repository. I think DMD should handle many versions of itself a little better (conf file) but that is a different issue.

The problem is, who will want to use 2.0? Currently a big problem is the "wild west" syndrome that it has. If this is released having 3.0 the Phobos/Tango merger, people will skip 2.0 to go for Tango. Don't get me wrong, we have many Phobos users; we really want to get rid of this divide as soon as possible, not make it permanent.

On to the question of "time for a D3." Consider what happened with this first split.

A stable branch (1.0) was to be created that would not allow "breaking changes" (new features are a special breaking change as it might not break past code). 2.0 became the test bed for new very different ideas that really change how the language worked.

There had been many bug reports filed before the idea of a split came about. Many people did not think a version break would stop feature crepe of the already posted requests. This would be important in deciding what to split.

Another thing to look at is reducing user choice. When someone is creating a new project, you want them to choose the latest release for it. You aren't likely to choose Java 1.4 over 1.6 however, I think in D's case even after a 2.0 release, we will likely see such a discussion being made. This will be the case if the user does not like the way const is done, and if the Tango merge is done in 3.0 that would be another reason. This should be avoided, but not a reason to leave out features in future versions.

If a 3.0 is to be considered a clear line should be drawn and the line should not be a radical change for the foreseeable future i.e. when the split is created.

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.
> 
> Paul

I've always seen the library, be it Tango or Phobos, as separate and entirely different from the version of DMD.  I've always been under the impression that the Phobos/Tango resolution wouldn't really involve changing the compiler or language at all - although maybe with the unified runtime someone will take advantage of this and add features like crazy since there will only be one runtime to update instead of two.  I don't know about that point.

My point is that I don't think that we should start tying the libraries to the compiler.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:17:56 -0700, Sean Kelly wrote:

> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> 
>> Wouldn't mind if those involved would make comparable amounts of money :o).
> 
> Perhaps D should move to the Windows release naming model then.  D 2008 ;-)

Actually, its been officially announced that the next Microsoft Opsys will be called "Windows 7", the same as its code name.

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