digitalmars.D - Standardization of D
- Matthew Nawrocki <matthew.nawrocki gmail.com> Jan 30 2008
- Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> Jan 30 2008
- Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Jan 30 2008
- downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> Jan 30 2008
- "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> Jan 31 2008
- Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Jan 31 2008
- downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> Jan 31 2008
- BCS <ao pathlink.com> Jan 31 2008
- Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> Jan 31 2008
- Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> Feb 01 2008
- Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> Feb 01 2008
- "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> Feb 01 2008
- Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> Feb 01 2008
- Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Feb 01 2008
- Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Feb 01 2008
- JMNorris <nospam nospam.com> Feb 03 2008
- Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> Feb 03 2008
- Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> Feb 03 2008
- Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Feb 01 2008
- BCS <ao pathlink.com> Feb 02 2008
- Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> Feb 04 2008
- "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> Jan 30 2008
Hello... I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever happen in the near future? Matt
Jan 30 2008
Matthew Nawrocki wrote:Hello... I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever happen in the near future? Matt
D Version 1.x is standardized.
Jan 30 2008
Robert Fraser, el 30 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:Matthew Nawrocki wrote:Hello... I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever happen in the near future? Matt
D Version 1.x is standardized.
Yeah, right... By the Walter Bright Standard Commitee? -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- He used to do surgery On girls in the eighties But gravity always wins
Jan 30 2008
Leandro Lucarella wrote:Robert Fraser, el 30 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:Matthew Nawrocki wrote:Hello... I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever happen in the near future? Matt
Yeah, right... By the Walter Bright Standard Commitee?
What are you expecting, ISO certified D? Walter is the author, he gets to set the standard. That's how it works. :)
Jan 30 2008
"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:25:28 -0000, downs <default_357-line yahoo.de> wrote:Leandro Lucarella wrote:Robert Fraser, el 30 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:Matthew Nawrocki wrote:Hello... I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever happen in the near future? Matt
Yeah, right... By the Walter Bright Standard Commitee?
What are you expecting, ISO certified D? Walter is the author, he gets to set the standard. That's how it works. :)
The trouble with standards is there's so many to choose from.
Jan 31 2008
downs, el 31 de enero a las 04:25 me escribiste:Leandro Lucarella wrote:Robert Fraser, el 30 de enero a las 14:45 me escribiste:Matthew Nawrocki wrote:Hello... I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever happen in the near future? Matt
Yeah, right... By the Walter Bright Standard Commitee?
What are you expecting, ISO certified D? Walter is the author, he gets to set the standard. That's how it works. :)
I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss and desitions are taken by more than one only person. -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you do not change your beliefs Your life will always be like this
Jan 31 2008
Leandro Lucarella wrote:I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss and desitions are taken by more than one only person.
I don't know about that. I'll have to consult the Standard Standard. :) --downs
Jan 31 2008
Leandro Lucarella wrote:I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss and desitions are taken by more than one only person.
Well if that is a standard, then lets NOT standardize D!! The parts of a "standard" I have any use for is the part that lets you use it. I don't give a ___ how it's made (D seems to do well with King Walter) just what it says. IIRC in mechanical systems, standards are things like "threads are this shape" not the people that define them (that is a standard committee or organization).
Jan 31 2008
BCS wrote:Leandro Lucarella wrote:I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss and desitions are taken by more than one only person.
Well if that is a standard, then lets NOT standardize D!! The parts of a "standard" I have any use for is the part that lets you use it. I don't give a ___ how it's made (D seems to do well with King Walter) just what it says. IIRC in mechanical systems, standards are things like "threads are this shape" not the people that define them (that is a standard committee or organization).
To be fair, a standard represents some sort of agreement among people, typically about a design. And the usefulness of a standard is directly tied to how many people agree about that design--the most common way of reaching a consensus being a committee. So the D language is 'standard' insofar as that we have all agreed to follow the design. The situation is a bit unstable in that it relies on the receptiveness and the talents of one individual (ie. Walter), but fortunately he has proven himself up to the task so far. Sean
Jan 31 2008
Sean Kelly wrote:BCS wrote:Leandro Lucarella wrote:I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss and desitions are taken by more than one only person.
The parts of a "standard" I have any use for is the part that lets you use it. I don't give a ___ how it's made (D seems to do well with King Walter) just what it says. IIRC in mechanical systems, standards are things like "threads are this shape" not the people that define them (that is a standard committee or organization).
To be fair, a standard represents some sort of agreement among people, typically about a design. And the usefulness of a standard is directly tied to how many people agree about that design--the most common way of reaching a consensus being a committee. So the D language is 'standard' insofar as that we have all agreed to follow the design. The situation is a bit unstable in that it relies on the receptiveness and the talents of one individual (ie. Walter), but fortunately he has proven himself up to the task so far. Sean
Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a consensus with himself. <g> Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases. So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.
Feb 01 2008
Don Clugston Wrote:Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a consensus with himself. <g> Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases. So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.
Maybe then it'll be time for D3 ;)
Feb 01 2008
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:22:30 -0000, Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> wrote:Don Clugston Wrote:Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a consensus with himself. <g> Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases. So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.
Maybe then it'll be time for D3 ;)
Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't put a definite year to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there. If I may quote the fictional genius Prof. Adonis Cnut Dr Hannah Awkward: "The human genome project took over a decade of work by hundreds of scientists around the world". Prof Adonis Cnut: "but I was working on my own so it was much quicker"
Feb 01 2008
Bruce Adams wrote:On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:22:30 -0000, Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> wrote:Don Clugston Wrote:Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a consensus with himself. <g> Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases. So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.
Maybe then it'll be time for D3 ;)
Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't put a definite year to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.
I won't say that design by committee is fast, but a considerable amount of the slowness for C++ is related to the process required by the standards body itself. I think the process was really designed with mechanical and electrical engineering in mind, rather than the quickly changing software field. Sean
Feb 01 2008
Sean Kelly wrote:I won't say that design by committee is fast, but a considerable amount of the slowness for C++ is related to the process required by the standards body itself. I think the process was really designed with mechanical and electrical engineering in mind, rather than the quickly changing software field.
The slowness is driven by a need to develop consensus among a large group of people, and to leave a heavily documented trail. This process is not inherent to the procedures of the standards body, the process is inherent in design by committee, and is merely reflected in the formal procedures.
Feb 01 2008
Bruce Adams, el 1 de febrero a las 19:00 me escribiste:On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:22:30 -0000, Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> wrote:Don Clugston Wrote:Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a consensus with himself. <g> Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases. So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.
Maybe then it'll be time for D3 ;)
Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't put a definite year to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.
You can have consensus in other languages that are not ISO Standard, even when they have their BDFL is there a lot more discussion and a more formal process, which means predictability. And yes, I'm talking about Python as an example :) -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Damian_Des> Me anDa MaL eL CaPSLoCK
Feb 01 2008
"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in news:op.t5u0eef7xikks4 starquake.cybernetics:Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't put a definite year to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.
Maybe they're hoping to finish in time to have a C++0x10? If so, they may not make it. :-)
Feb 03 2008
JMNorris wrote:"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in news:op.t5u0eef7xikks4 starquake.cybernetics:Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't put a definite year to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.
Maybe they're hoping to finish in time to have a C++0x10? If so, they may not make it. :-)
2016...?
Feb 03 2008
JMNorris wrote:"Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> wrote in news:op.t5u0eef7xikks4 starquake.cybernetics:Design by comittee is reknowned for its speed even when there is concensus. Look at how long it took to get ISO C++ and they daren't put a definite year to C++0x. It was probably a little optimistic putting a 0 there.
Maybe they're hoping to finish in time to have a C++0x10? If so, they may not make it. :-)
I think they're still working on a pre-2010 timeframe, but they had to cut a bunch of stuff to make it. I believe the standardization process they work with requires about a year of voting and such to finalize things, so they've actually got to be done fairly soon. Sean
Feb 03 2008
Don Clugston wrote:Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a consensus with himself. <g> Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases. So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.
D1 is complete as far as I'm concerned, except for bug fixes and changes that improve the compiler without changing the spec. The current plan is for D2 to be finalized sometime in the fall.
Feb 01 2008
Reply to Walter,Don Clugston wrote:Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a consensus with himself. <g> Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases. So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.
changes that improve the compiler without changing the spec. The current plan is for D2 to be finalized sometime in the fall.
at this reate it should be D-07 and D-08 :) keep up the good work.
Feb 02 2008
Walter Bright wrote:Don Clugston wrote:Right now, D2 is not standard even in that sense -- Walter hasn't reached a consensus with himself. <g> Look how 'const' has changed over the past ten releases. So to answer the original post -- I expect at least another year of releases before Walter will say that the language design is essentially complete.
D1 is complete as far as I'm concerned, except for bug fixes and changes that improve the compiler without changing the spec. The current plan is for D2 to be finalized sometime in the fall.
ambitious? Anyway, it would be good to put this on the 'futures' page on the spec. If the D1 futures page simply said something like: "D1 is complete, except for bug fixes and changes that improve the compiler without changing the spec. From April 2007, all language enhancements were made to D2". then you'd never have to change it again. (Up to now, it's been a page with a spectacularly poor record of prediction <g>). And for D2, you could provide a link to the conference paper.
Feb 04 2008
"Robert Fraser" <fraserofthenight gmail.com> wrote in message news:fnqun8$9o4$1 digitalmars.com...Matthew Nawrocki wrote:Hello... I am told that the D language has not been standardized yet. Will this ever happen in the near future? Matt
D Version 1.x is standardized.
In fact it was standardized well over a year ago.
Jan 30 2008