www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - is it possible to learn D(2)?

reply Gour <gour atmarama.net> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

Seeing all the threads here about improving D(2) syntax for different
features of the language, I just wonder if it's possible to learn D(2)
language which is so much in flux by using TDPL as reference?

Now I may have some time to learn D(2), but wonder when will the
language become more stable or the proposals/improvements discussed
here (I skip over majority of such threads) are not major changes?


Sincerely,
Gour

--=20

Gour  | Hlapicina, Croatia  | GPG key: CDBF17CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 18 2010
next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Saturday 18 December 2010 01:14:19 Gour wrote:
 Hello,
 
 Seeing all the threads here about improving D(2) syntax for different
 features of the language, I just wonder if it's possible to learn D(2)
 language which is so much in flux by using TDPL as reference?
 
 Now I may have some time to learn D(2), but wonder when will the
 language become more stable or the proposals/improvements discussed
 here (I skip over majority of such threads) are not major changes?

TDPL is mostly correct. There are a few features that it discusses that either quite buggy or outright unimplemented (e.g. neither inout and alias this is completely implemented and some of what is implemented is rather buggy). There are also some features which may change. However, at this point, stuff is only going to change with a really good reason, and most of such changes are likely to be additive and wouldn't break much - if anything. For instance, weak purity is essentially an additive change. It makes it so that more functions can be marked as pure, but it doesn't make more functions optimizable due to purity, and it doesn't break any code. Prior to the release of TDPL, there were at times major changes between releases of dmd which broke a lot of code. That doesn't really happen anymore. For the most part, if you follow TDPL, you will be fine. Some stuff in TDPL won't work yet in practice, and it is possible that a few changes will be made to the language at some point which break current code and/or contradict TDPL. But no such changes have yet been made, I don't believe, and there are none which have been decided upon. None will be made without a definite, compelling reason, precisely because TDPL is supposed to be valid. D2 is not entirely stable, but it the spec is no longer in constant flux either. Some changes likely will happen, but only as necessary, and they're going to be rare. And as time passes, they will become even rarer. Some folks will continue to discuss possible features for D which will never make it into D2. If there is ever a D3, they may be included then, but stuff like non-nullable references is not going to make it into the language in D2 (though there may be a library solution for it). Now, Phobos is certainly in flux. Parts of it are quite stable and won't be changing particularly, but there's plenty of it which will continue to evolve, and there will certainly be more stuff being added. Phobos is still very much a work in progress. Really, the biggest obstacle to D development at this point is likely simply bugs - be they in the compiler or in Phobos. The situation continues to improve, but there are bugs which pop up from time to time which can cause major headaches (like inout being totally broken at the moment). The language spec is essentially stable, but not necessarily set in stone. In almost all cases, you can rely on TDPL being correct. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that. Compiler bugs are far more likely to trip you up than any language changes. If and when they happen, they'll probably remove certain types of problems rather than causing much in the way of new ones anyway. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 18 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Lutger Blijdestijn <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Gour wrote:

 Hello,
 
 Seeing all the threads here about improving D(2) syntax for different
 features of the language, I just wonder if it's possible to learn D(2)
 language which is so much in flux by using TDPL as reference?
 
 Now I may have some time to learn D(2), but wonder when will the
 language become more stable or the proposals/improvements discussed
 here (I skip over majority of such threads) are not major changes?
 
 
 Sincerely,
 Gour
 

Yes, it's not so much in flux as it seems. Like Jonathan says, it's more that some parts of phobos are unstable and certain bugs can stand in the way. Breaking changes to the language itself are very rare / unlikely now. I can't remember when such a thing broke my code whereas it used to happen every month. You can browse the changelog*, which lists new features for every release, to get a picture of the evolution. But also consider that most of the issues talked about are the more 'advanced' parts of the language. The bread and butter features haven't been changed that much for a long time now and are pretty solid. * http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html
Dec 18 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Caligo <iteronvexor gmail.com> writes:
--000e0cd2bfecd309870497aecca3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

If there is going to be a D3, will it be backwards compatible with D2?

And why is work still being done on the D1 compiler?  Shouldn't it be marked
deprecated so people stop using it and move to D2?

Also, do you know if there are any plans to standardize the language?  Is
the specification complete?


On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com>wrote:

 On Saturday 18 December 2010 01:14:19 Gour wrote:
 Hello,

 Seeing all the threads here about improving D(2) syntax for different
 features of the language, I just wonder if it's possible to learn D(2)
 language which is so much in flux by using TDPL as reference?

 Now I may have some time to learn D(2), but wonder when will the
 language become more stable or the proposals/improvements discussed
 here (I skip over majority of such threads) are not major changes?

TDPL is mostly correct. There are a few features that it discusses that either quite buggy or outright unimplemented (e.g. neither inout and alias this is completely implemented and some of what is implemented is rather buggy). There are also some features which may change. However, at this point, stuff is only going to change with a really good reason, and most of such changes are likely to be additive and wouldn't break much - if anything. For instance, weak purity is essentially an additive change. It makes it so that more functions can be marked as pure, but it doesn't make more functions optimizable due to purity, and it doesn't break any code. Prior to the release of TDPL, there were at times major changes between releases of dmd which broke a lot of code. That doesn't really happen anymore. For the most part, if you follow TDPL, you will be fine. Some stuff in TDPL won't work yet in practice, and it is possible that a few changes will be made to the language at some point which break current code and/or contradict TDPL. But no such changes have yet been made, I don't believe, and there are none which have been decided upon. None will be made without a definite, compelling reason, precisely because TDPL is supposed to be valid. D2 is not entirely stable, but it the spec is no longer in constant flux either. Some changes likely will happen, but only as necessary, and they're going to be rare. And as time passes, they will become even rarer. Some folks will continue to discuss possible features for D which will never make it into D2. If there is ever a D3, they may be included then, but stuff like non-nullable references is not going to make it into the language in D2 (though there may be a library solution for it). Now, Phobos is certainly in flux. Parts of it are quite stable and won't be changing particularly, but there's plenty of it which will continue to evolve, and there will certainly be more stuff being added. Phobos is still very much a work in progress. Really, the biggest obstacle to D development at this point is likely simply bugs - be they in the compiler or in Phobos. The situation continues to improve, but there are bugs which pop up from time to time which can cause major headaches (like inout being totally broken at the moment). The language spec is essentially stable, but not necessarily set in stone. In almost all cases, you can rely on TDPL being correct. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that. Compiler bugs are far more likely to trip you up than any language changes. If and when they happen, they'll probably remove certain types of problems rather than causing much in the way of new ones anyway. - Jonathan M Davis

--000e0cd2bfecd309870497aecca3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If there is going to be a D3, will it be backwards compatible with D2?<br><= br>And why is work still being done on the D1 compiler?=A0 Shouldn&#39;t it= be marked deprecated so people stop using it and move to D2?<br><br>Also, = do you know if there are any plans to standardize the language?=A0 Is the s= pecification complete? <br> <br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Jonatha= n M Davis <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jmdavisProg gmx.com">jmda= visProg gmx.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" = style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 20= 4); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class=3D"im">On Saturday 18 December 2010 01:14:19 Gour wrote:<br> &gt; Hello,<br> &gt;<br> &gt; Seeing all the threads here about improving D(2) syntax for different<= br> &gt; features of the language, I just wonder if it&#39;s possible to learn = D(2)<br> &gt; language which is so much in flux by using TDPL as reference?<br> &gt;<br> &gt; Now I may have some time to learn D(2), but wonder when will the<br> &gt; language become more stable or the proposals/improvements discussed<br=

<br> </div>TDPL is mostly correct. There are a few features that it discusses th= at either<br> quite buggy or outright unimplemented (e.g. neither inout and alias this is= <br> completely implemented and some of what is implemented is rather buggy). Th= ere<br> are also some features which may change. However, at this point, stuff is o= nly<br> going to change with a really good reason, and most of such changes are lik= ely<br> to be additive and wouldn&#39;t break much - if anything. For instance, wea= k purity<br> is essentially an additive change. It makes it so that more functions can b= e<br> marked as pure, but it doesn&#39;t make more functions optimizable due to p= urity,<br> and it doesn&#39;t break any code.<br> <br> Prior to the release of TDPL, there were at times major changes between rel= eases<br> of dmd which broke a lot of code. That doesn&#39;t really happen anymore.<b= r> <br> For the most part, if you follow TDPL, you will be fine. Some stuff in TDPL= won&#39;t<br> work yet in practice, and it is possible that a few changes will be made to= the<br> language at some point which break current code and/or contradict TDPL. But= no<br> such changes have yet been made, I don&#39;t believe, and there are none wh= ich have<br> been decided upon. None will be made without a definite, compelling reason,= <br> precisely because TDPL is supposed to be valid. D2 is not entirely stable, = but<br> it the spec is no longer in constant flux either.<br> <br> Some changes likely will happen, but only as necessary, and they&#39;re goi= ng to be<br> rare. And as time passes, they will become even rarer.<br> <br> Some folks will continue to discuss possible features for D which will neve= r<br> make it into D2. If there is ever a D3, they may be included then, but stuf= f like<br> non-nullable references is not going to make it into the language in D2 (th= ough<br> there may be a library solution for it).<br> <br> Now, Phobos is certainly in flux. Parts of it are quite stable and won&#39;= t be<br> changing particularly, but there&#39;s plenty of it which will continue to = evolve,<br> and there will certainly be more stuff being added. Phobos is still very mu= ch a<br> work in progress.<br> <br> Really, the biggest obstacle to D development at this point is likely simpl= y<br> bugs - be they in the compiler or in Phobos. The situation continues to imp= rove,<br> but there are bugs which pop up from time to time which can cause major<br> headaches (like inout being totally broken at the moment). The language spe= c is<br> essentially stable, but not necessarily set in stone. In almost all cases, = you<br> can rely on TDPL being correct. So, I wouldn&#39;t worry too much about tha= t.<br> Compiler bugs are far more likely to trip you up than any language changes.= If<br> and when they happen, they&#39;ll probably remove certain types of problems= rather<br> than causing much in the way of new ones anyway.<br> <font color=3D"#888888"><br> - Jonathan M Davis<br> </font></blockquote></div><br> --000e0cd2bfecd309870497aecca3--
Dec 18 2010
next sibling parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 12/18/2010 07:55 AM, Caligo wrote:
 If there is going to be a D3, will it be backwards compatible with D2?

 And why is work still being done on the D1 compiler?  Shouldn't it be marked
 deprecated so people stop using it and move to D2?

D1 is stable and only bug fixes are being applied to it. For D2, the post you replied to mentioned compiler bugs several times, and also mentioned unimplemented features. D2 has *never* been officially released (like D1 was), though its release was supposed to coincide with the release of Andrei's book. The date kept on getting pushed further and further back, until finally the book came out (publishers only have so much patience), and no mention of D being released was made. Walter and Andrei haven't been very honest in their presentations on the state of the language. I know a software project is never "finished", in that you can't expect perfection, but D2 is still in the alpha state. It's not reasonable for features documented in the definitive book on the language to not work. Also, the crown jewel of D2 was supposed to be immutability and concurrency, and those are the buggiest parts.
Dec 18 2010
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
 On 12/18/2010 07:55 AM, Caligo wrote:
 If there is going to be a D3, will it be backwards compatible with D2?

 And why is work still being done on the D1 compiler?  Shouldn't it be 
 marked
 deprecated so people stop using it and move to D2?

D1 is stable and only bug fixes are being applied to it. For D2, the post you replied to mentioned compiler bugs several times, and also mentioned unimplemented features. D2 has *never* been officially released (like D1 was), though its release was supposed to coincide with the release of Andrei's book.

Where did you get that idea? I've never heard it before. (Genuine question, I'd like to know where that impression came from). The date kept on getting pushed further and further back, until finally the
 book came out (publishers only have so much patience), and no mention of 
 D being released was made.
 
 Walter and Andrei haven't been very honest in their presentations on the 
 state of the language. 

I think the initial estimate of how long things would take was wildly optimistic. I am certain that there's been no intention to be dishonest, at any stage.
 I know a software project is never "finished", in
 that you can't expect perfection, but D2 is still in the alpha state. 
 It's not reasonable for features documented in the definitive book on 
 the language to not work. 

Agreed. Unfortunately, the publishers couldn't be delayed any further. There are a few things in the book which still don't work, and will take another couple of releases to be implemented. (A few months before release, the list of non-implemented features was quite long. Most of the things on the list _were_ implemented in time. A couple turned out to be unexpectedly difficult).
 Also, the crown jewel of D2 was supposed to be 
 immutability and concurrency, and those are the buggiest parts.

Well, they are the most difficult bits! So if anything were to be incomplete, it would be those.
Dec 18 2010
parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 12/18/2010 03:16 PM, Don wrote:
 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
 D2 has *never* been officially released (like D1 was), though its
 release was supposed to coincide with the release of Andrei's book.

Where did you get that idea? I've never heard it before. (Genuine question, I'd like to know where that impression came from).

Which idea are you questioning? That D2 hasn't been "released", or that the two were supposed to come out together? The answer to both would be the newsgroup. There was plenty of talk about them coming out together, and then time went by, and Andrei's book was relatively quietly released (unless I missed some big announcement; my memory was of posts trickling in of people who had pre-ordered), and no mention was made of D2 being released any more along with the book. I can dig up posts if you like, but I'd rather not unless any of this is in dispute.
 Walter and Andrei haven't been very honest in their presentations on
 the state of the language.

I think the initial estimate of how long things would take was wildly optimistic. I am certain that there's been no intention to be dishonest, at any stage.

Andrei gives other people a lot of shit over only showing the positive in their presentations. Both Andrei and Walter have misrepresented the open source compiler issues on their slides (and Walter had no excuse after Andrei was called for it on the newsgroup). I saw Andrei's Google presentation and he talked a lot about D2 features and gave away a lot of books, but never once said that D2 was still being implemented and that serious bugs remained.
Dec 18 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jeff Nowakowski" <jeff dilacero.org> wrote in message 
news:ieja3o$gf0$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/18/2010 03:16 PM, Don wrote:
 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
 D2 has *never* been officially released (like D1 was), though its
 release was supposed to coincide with the release of Andrei's book.

Where did you get that idea? I've never heard it before. (Genuine question, I'd like to know where that impression came from).

Which idea are you questioning? That D2 hasn't been "released", or that the two were supposed to come out together? The answer to both would be the newsgroup. There was plenty of talk about them coming out together, and then time went by, and Andrei's book was relatively quietly released (unless I missed some big announcement; my memory was of posts trickling in of people who had pre-ordered), and no mention was made of D2 being released any more along with the book.

I only remember the talk being about the D2 language spec getting frozen from breaking changes when the book came out. And that's happened.
Dec 18 2010
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/18/10 3:44 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
 On 12/18/2010 03:16 PM, Don wrote:
 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
 D2 has *never* been officially released (like D1 was), though its
 release was supposed to coincide with the release of Andrei's book.

Where did you get that idea? I've never heard it before. (Genuine question, I'd like to know where that impression came from).

Which idea are you questioning? That D2 hasn't been "released", or that the two were supposed to come out together? The answer to both would be the newsgroup. There was plenty of talk about them coming out together, and then time went by, and Andrei's book was relatively quietly released (unless I missed some big announcement; my memory was of posts trickling in of people who had pre-ordered), and no mention was made of D2 being released any more along with the book. I can dig up posts if you like, but I'd rather not unless any of this is in dispute.

I don't think it's worth investigating this, but at any rate my thinking has been that finalizing TDPL would finalize the specification of D2. Of course, ideally the compiler would follow the specification as closely as possible, but with the number of extant issues it has always been pretty clear that conformance will be trailing. The book hasn't been released quietly at all; I've sent numerous updates to this group (just search for TDPL in the title) and my website has made the event as prominent as it could. As it was clearly highly anticipated in this group, laying it any thicker would have been inappropriate.
 Walter and Andrei haven't been very honest in their presentations on
 the state of the language.

I think the initial estimate of how long things would take was wildly optimistic. I am certain that there's been no intention to be dishonest, at any stage.

Andrei gives other people a lot of shit over only showing the positive in their presentations. Both Andrei and Walter have misrepresented the open source compiler issues on their slides (and Walter had no excuse after Andrei was called for it on the newsgroup). I saw Andrei's Google presentation and he talked a lot about D2 features and gave away a lot of books, but never once said that D2 was still being implemented and that serious bugs remained.

A fair point. Well I didn't give away "a lot" of books, I gave three, and specifically for the three most embarrassing questions. (My budget of giveaway books is fairly limited.) Another thing would be that I tend to focus on language power, because that's perennial, and consider implementation bugs something transitory. As of today I can't offhand think of a feature in TDPL that we don't know how to implement in D, and that topic is important. Andrei
Dec 18 2010
parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 12/19/2010 01:44 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I don't think it's worth investigating this, but at any rate my
 thinking has been that finalizing TDPL would finalize the
 specification of D2. Of course, ideally the compiler would follow
 the specification as closely as possible, but with the number of
 extant issues it has always been pretty clear that conformance will
 be trailing.

Always? It became clear at some point, but did you really not expect all the features to be fully implemented when you started the book? How about this statement from you: May 15, 2009: Re: Please Vote: Exercises in TDPL? "One nice thing is I've written (in D!) a little script that extracts the code from all of my examples, compiles it, and runs it comparing the output with the expected output. The book will definitely have a number of faults, but code that doesn't work will not be one of them. [..] There's still stuff that doesn't compile (Walter is working on that)"
 The book hasn't been released quietly at all; I've sent numerous
 updates to this group (just search for TDPL in the title) and my
 website has made the event as prominent as it could.

I agree and retract my statement: the release wasn't quiet. What stuck out in my mind was that there was talk of an imminent release, and then weeks went by before somebody reported receiving the book. I guess that's just lag time in the publication process.
 Well I didn't give away "a lot" of books, I gave three, and
 specifically for the three most embarrassing questions.

It was 6. You mentioned the number at the very beginning of your talk. It is nice that you prodded for embarrassing questions.
 Another thing would be that I tend to focus on language power,
 because that's perennial, and consider implementation bugs something
 transitory.

People who hear a talk about something and want to try it out will very much care about implementation bugs. You should warn them in advance, especially for major bugs and unimplemented features.
 As of today I can't offhand think of a feature in TDPL that we don't
 know how to implement in D, and that topic is important.

Problems with theoretical designs are often found after implementation and usage. It's certainly been the case with D and immutability + concurrency. I sure hope you give an honest review at the next D talk. This is what you said about a Go programming talk on this newsgroup: "I'm surprised you found the talk compelling, as I'm sure you know better. The talk uses a common technique - cherry-picking examples and avoiding to discuss costs and tradeoffs - to make the language look good." Maybe you can talk about all the problems that have been exposed with D's model of immutability. I think these statements from you would be a good starting point: Aug 16, 2010: Re: The Status of Const "Const and immutable will be used less often than in C++. This might seem a weakness to those coming from C++ where const can and should be sprinkled often, but it is a natural consequence of the relative restrictions imposed by const in C++ vs. D. D's const is more restrictive, and as such will find its way in fewer idioms than C++'s." Sep 17, 2010: Re: QtD is suspended "But by and large I think the matter could gave have be settled in a different manner: by not catering for const in the first release. D has a lot to offer besides const, and its const subsystem is a good bit more restrictive than e.g. C++'s, mainly to help with concurrency."
Dec 19 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/19/10 9:19 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
 On 12/19/2010 01:44 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I don't think it's worth investigating this, but at any rate my
 thinking has been that finalizing TDPL would finalize the
 specification of D2. Of course, ideally the compiler would follow
 the specification as closely as possible, but with the number of
 extant issues it has always been pretty clear that conformance will
 be trailing.

Always? It became clear at some point, but did you really not expect all the features to be fully implemented when you started the book? How about this statement from you: May 15, 2009: Re: Please Vote: Exercises in TDPL? "One nice thing is I've written (in D!) a little script that extracts the code from all of my examples, compiles it, and runs it comparing the output with the expected output. The book will definitely have a number of faults, but code that doesn't work will not be one of them. [..] There's still stuff that doesn't compile (Walter is working on that)"

Yes, how about it? Is this a murder investigation? I have a hard time figuring out what is the ultimate purpose of spelunking my past statements to look for inconsistencies. Andrei
Dec 19 2010
parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 12/20/2010 02:48 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Yes, how about it? Is this a murder investigation? I have a hard time
 figuring out what is the ultimate purpose of spelunking my past
 statements to look for inconsistencies.

Hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine. How about discussing the gory problems with const, and discussing the true state of the language at the next D talk? If you're going to bash Go presentations for cherry-picking, you should hold yourself to the same standards. As for why I did the research, if people are going to deny statements I made, then I'm going to back them up with facts. I did rescind one erroneous statement of mine. My original post was in response to a thread about somebody looking to jump into D2, and somebody who responded asking why D1 was even being worked on. I'd say my post was on topic.
Dec 20 2010
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/20/10 6:02 AM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
 On 12/20/2010 02:48 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Yes, how about it? Is this a murder investigation? I have a hard time
 figuring out what is the ultimate purpose of spelunking my past
 statements to look for inconsistencies.

Hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine. How about discussing the gory problems with const, and discussing the true state of the language at the next D talk? If you're going to bash Go presentations for cherry-picking, you should hold yourself to the same standards.

I understand. The issue is comparing apples with apples. Every language has implementation bugs and shortcomings. I'd be glad to discuss them if the gist of the talk were the state of implementation, or if asked during any of my talks on D. What I didn't find becoming about the aforementioned talk on Go was that it presented only the good consequences of some PL design choices that come with tradeoffs having pluses and minuses in almost equal supplies. Taking that stand to its logical conclusion would lead one to believe that Go figured out some point that all other languages missed, which in my humble opinion is not the case. (BTW I believe that D _did_ figure out some points, and did make decisions with mostly positive consequences, that all other languages missed, such as the scope statement.)
 As for why I did the research, if people are going to deny statements I
 made, then I'm going to back them up with facts. I did rescind one
 erroneous statement of mine.

Will the jury please disregard the erroneous statement.
 My original post was in response to a thread about somebody looking to
 jump into D2, and somebody who responded asking why D1 was even being
 worked on. I'd say my post was on topic.

I agree. Andrei
Dec 20 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Caligo:

 If there is going to be a D3, will it be backwards compatible with D2?

This is the desire (but some details may be not fully backward compatible).
 And why is work still being done on the D1 compiler?

Bug fixes, mostly.
 Also, do you know if there are any plans to standardize the language?
 Is the specification complete?

The specification is not complete yet. Several more years will need to pass (probably 3 or 5) before standardization is able to start strongly with hope to be complete too. Bye, bearophile
Dec 18 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Caligo" <iteronvexor gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.4.1292676932.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Also, do you know if there are any plans to standardize the language?

There aren't a bunch of diverging implementations of D, so standardization isn't currently needed.
Dec 18 2010
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Caligo wrote:
 If there is going to be a D3, will it be backwards compatible with D2?

D3 plans are a complete unknown at the moment.
 And why is work still being done on the D1 compiler?  Shouldn't it be 
 marked deprecated so people stop using it and move to D2?

Since there are many breaking changes from D1 to D2, and a lot of people have large code bases in D1, it makes sense to support them with bug fixes. However, no new features are added to D1.
Dec 20 2010
parent reply Jean Crystof <news news.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 Caligo wrote:
 If there is going to be a D3, will it be backwards compatible with D2?

D3 plans are a complete unknown at the moment.

So, what's the main reason D3 plans are unknown? Have you got a list of realistic new features? Is it lack of manpower? Too early to release anything new now that D2 isn't in serious production use yet?
Dec 20 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jean Crystof wrote:
 So, what's the main reason D3 plans are unknown? Have you got a list of
 realistic new features? Is it lack of manpower? Too early to release anything
 new now that D2 isn't in serious production use yet?

D2 first.
Dec 20 2010
prev sibling parent Gour <gour atmarama.net> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:02:51 -0500
 "Jeff" =3D=3D Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> wrote:






Hi Jeff, Jeff> Hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine. How about discussing the gory Jeff> problems with const, and discussing the true state of the Jeff> language at the next D talk? If you're going to bash Go Jeff> presentations for cherry-picking, you should hold yourself to the Jeff> same standards. Please don't take it personal...I'm just taking 'advantage' of your post to suggest to all the posters one thing: Please be a little bit more positive towards Walter and Andrei. They are not Supermans but sincerely trying to give some good to us and it's practically free. Long ago, I bought and used Walter's Zortech C++ compiler which was superb. Then I left programming waters and returned back some years ago. I didn't want to go to C(++) which evolved into huge beast and skipped all the scripting languages trying my fortune with Haskell. However, after some time I've decided that I want something more pragmatic...read a bit about D, saw Andrei's Google presentation (I liked his enthusiasm), bought the TDPL book (and put it in hardcover to last longer) and now I'm slowly learning the language hoping to use it in a real-world along with QtD. Yes, I'm not blind and can see that some mistakes were probably done within D community...D is certainly not perfect language (this title is already reserved for Sanskrit :-) ), but if you can tell me about better language to be used for practical daily programming having feature set or covering different programming paradigms - here I am. ;) I did my homework and nothing is similar to D, so please make this newsgroup more pleasant place by uttering some nice words about Walter & Bright. I sincerely believe they're humans who like to get some encouragement as well instead of constant downpour of (very often) unjustified criticism. If anyone can do better, pls. step in and show the example...otherwise, let's us show some gratitude towards people trying to make programming more fun. Sincerely, Gour --=20 Gour | Hlapicina, Croatia | GPG key: CDBF17CA ----------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 20 2010