www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - Re: Backporting

reply lurk <lurl lurk.com> writes:
Frits van Bommel Wrote:

 lurk wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
 
 "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote in message 
 news:fd8gnt$149q$1 digitalmars.com...
 I'd like to see some useful small things be backported from 2.x to 1.x, 
 like foreach(i; 2 .. 8).

 (In the Python language the future Python V.2.6 will probably be a release 
 to backport as much as possible).

won't get any new features. It's a done deal. All new features now go into 2.0.


?? AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ...

meant to be sarcastic. 2.x is need, but nobody supports it.
Sep 24 2007
parent reply Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
lurk wrote:
 Frits van Bommel Wrote:
 
 lurk wrote:
 and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer version 2.0

AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ...

meant to be sarcastic. 2.x is need, but nobody supports it.

"Hey guys, let's update Tango to support 2.0; it'll take a while, but it'll be worth it!" "Yeah!" [A few months later] "Ok, we're finally done! We had to refactor a sh*tload of code, and split a heap of it off into different modules and *damn* do I hate string mixins now, but we're finally done!" Walter: "const sucks; let's re-design it from scratch." "Dear God, shoot me now!" *That's* why libraries don't support D 2.0. Because it would be silly to support a target that's not only moving, but constantly changing shape. :) -- Daniel
Sep 24 2007
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Daniel Keep wrote:
 
 lurk wrote:
 Frits van Bommel Wrote:

 lurk wrote:
 and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer version 2.0

AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ...

2.x is need, but nobody supports it.

"Hey guys, let's update Tango to support 2.0; it'll take a while, but it'll be worth it!" "Yeah!" [A few months later] "Ok, we're finally done! We had to refactor a sh*tload of code, and split a heap of it off into different modules and *damn* do I hate string mixins now, but we're finally done!" Walter: "const sucks; let's re-design it from scratch." "Dear God, shoot me now!" *That's* why libraries don't support D 2.0. Because it would be silly to support a target that's not only moving, but constantly changing shape. :) -- Daniel

Which is exactly why cherry picking some backward-compatible features from 2.0 to backport makes a lot of sense. Is that the point you were trying to make? --bb
Sep 24 2007
parent Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 Daniel Keep wrote:
 lurk wrote:
 Frits van Bommel Wrote:

 lurk wrote:
 and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer
 version 2.0

AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ...

2.x is need, but nobody supports it.

[Silliness] -- Daniel

Which is exactly why cherry picking some backward-compatible features from 2.0 to backport makes a lot of sense. Is that the point you were trying to make? --bb

No, the point was that "nobody" supports 2.0 because no-one wants to try and support a rapidly moving target. As for backporting; in general, I would agree. If DMD was being written by a team of programmers, I'd be pushing for the backporting of every non-compatibility breaking feature that's proven to be useful. But it's not. It's just Walter, and Walter can only do so much in a finite amount of time. I would kill to have some of the 2.0 features in 1.x, but I think having a *stable* compiler is much more important. I think that's the point *you* were making earlier :P Incidentally, it's nice to have a non-moving language. D 1.0 is *very* usable at the moment, and is certainly nicer to program in than C or C++. -- Daniel
Sep 25 2007