On Friday, 17 April 2015 at 05:19:05 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:
> - The 2.067 merge gets version 0.99.0 and with the 2.068 move on to 1.0.0.
>   (First version with D code in the frontend!)
>
> - Just drop 0. Next version is 16.0
>
> Any opinions or better ideas?

I don't think it matters much except for in a press release. So better to stay humble than oversell.

I'd say stay with 0.x until DMD has settled C++ integration and fixated the memory model. LDC has some great options for great clang integration, so going 1.0 with great C++ integration would be a nice marketing possibility (2.x and 16.x is not as marketable).

Just look at all the fuzz around Go and Rust when going 1.0 (yes, that is the compiler, but still...)

On Friday, 17 April 2015 at 20:19:01 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> LDC has been production-ready on Linux for a long time.

On Linux x86/x86-64 :)

I can't compile for arm.

On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 08:37:02 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
> On Friday, 17 April 2015 at 20:19:01 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> LDC has been production-ready on Linux for a long time.
>
> On Linux x86/x86-64 :)
>
> I can't compile for arm.

The missing __mulodi4 symbol? I you need to link against compiler-rt on arm.
Are another error?

Regards,
Kai

On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 08:37:02 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
> On Friday, 17 April 2015 at 20:19:01 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> LDC has been production-ready on Linux for a long time.
>
> On Linux x86/x86-64 :)
>
> I can't compile for arm.

LDC should work now at least for Arch Linux @ ARM (it worked last time I checked the packages). I had to disable intrinsics usage in druntime that caused missing __mulodi4 error when preparing the package but that was the only issue.