www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Future of DMD 1.xxx

reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
I've been meaning to ask...
Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf will 
be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't on 
D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to port to 
2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or "until it 
is near to release".

--bb
Sep 04 2007
next sibling parent reply "Simen Haugen" <simen norstat.no> writes:
"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fbj50b$2dd2$1 digitalmars.com...
 I've been meaning to ask...
 Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf will 
 be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

 If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't on 
 D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to port to 
 2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or "until it is 
 near to release".

 --bb

And others are dropping 1.0 even before 2.0 is stable... I started using D when I saw the 1.0 mark, but I wished I had waited... Tango vs. Phobos and the fact that 1.0 was not frozen has caused a lot of headaches. Now also 1.0 vs. 2.0 is starting to be a problem. Guess it will take quite some time before things will get stable.
Sep 04 2007
parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Simen Haugen wrote:
 "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
 news:fbj50b$2dd2$1 digitalmars.com...
 I've been meaning to ask...
 Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf will 
 be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

 If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't on 
 D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to port to 
 2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or "until it is 
 near to release".

 --bb


But if these features would get in 1.0, the whole stable vs unstable branch would be undone (could just as well merge back), and D will start to be all moving target again. We can't live on the bleeding edge and have stability at the same time. I'd like to think the future of D 1.xxx will be the applications written in it.
 And others are dropping 1.0 even before 2.0 is stable...
 
 I started using D when I saw the 1.0 mark, but I wished I had waited... 
 Tango vs. Phobos and the fact that 1.0 was not frozen has caused a lot of 
 headaches. Now also 1.0 vs. 2.0 is starting to be a problem. Guess it will 
 take quite some time before things will get stable.
 

Probably true, but it also depends on what you expect from a stable system and want out of D. Really the fork is what I think D 1.0 should have been to begin with, and things have been quite stable since compared to before this split. Now the source of instability is not changing language features, but lies more in the library landscape. I don't see 1.0 vs 2.0 as a problem, on the contrary, it is just a trade-off that gives you a choice: develop on the bleeding edge or program to a language that won't change every couple of weeks / months. Before, we had only bleeding edge, with sometimes new or changed languages features twice a month! Now you have the choice, it's a good thing. With some care, upgrading to 2.0 in the future will not be a big problem. Something similar goes for Phobos / Tango, you have a choice now. Although here it also fragments other libraries, which D2.0 doesn't seem to do yet, and I hope that will not happen soon.
Sep 04 2007
parent Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Lutger wrote:
 Simen Haugen wrote:
 "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
 news:fbj50b$2dd2$1 digitalmars.com...
 I've been meaning to ask...
 Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf 
 will be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

 If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't 
 on D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to 
 port to 2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or 
 "until it is near to release".

 --bb


But if these features would get in 1.0, the whole stable vs unstable branch would be undone (could just as well merge back), and D will start to be all moving target again. We can't live on the bleeding edge and have stability at the same time.

Well, I was never one of those advocating that the language needed to stop changing. But I do think a branch that maintains backwards compatibility is good. As long as old code compiles with the new compiler it's ok in my book. I even don't mind some small incompatibilities like 'ref' becoming a keyword. I want to be able to use the new features like struct inheritance and macros, even if more conservative libraries stay away from them. But in any event it's probably too much work for Walter to backport such features to 1.x anyway. Would just mean 2.0 would take that much longer to reach stability. --bb
Sep 04 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dune <no spam.com> writes:
Is there a doc that actually explains the compiler differences between the 1.xx
and the 2.xx series?

If so where can I find it?
If not what are the compiler differences between the 1.xx and the 2.xx series?

Thanks 
Sep 04 2007
parent Jascha Wetzel <"[firstname]" mainia.de> writes:
Dune wrote:
 Is there a doc that actually explains the compiler differences between the
1.xx and the 2.xx series?
 
 If so where can I find it?
 If not what are the compiler differences between the 1.xx and the 2.xx series?
 
 Thanks 

the 2.0 changelog is the most compact list of differences. you can also compare the docs of 1.0 and 2.0.
Sep 04 2007
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 I've been meaning to ask...
 Am I right in thinking that basically nothing from WalterAndrei.pdf will 
 be going into a DMD 1.xxx version?

Right, that's the point of it! 1.0 will get bug fixes, though.
 If so, that's a bummer because some of the upstream libraries aren't on 
 D2.0, and the maintainers have stated that they're not going to port to 
 2.0 "until the 2.0 design is pretty conclusively settled", or "until it 
 is near to release".

There's no way to stuff more features in and call it a stable release.
Sep 04 2007