digitalmars.D - All this talk about finalising D2 makes me worried
- Stewart Gordon (28/28) Jul 15 2009 With apologies to Bruno Medeiros....
- Robert Fraser (13/53) Jul 15 2009 This topic has come up over and over, and the results are always the
- Steven Schveighoffer (17/23) Jul 15 2009 What bugs in D1 are fixed in D2? I think Walter is fixing D1 and D2 bug...
- Bill Baxter (13/37) Jul 15 2009 s
- Tyro [a.c.edwards] (4/12) Jul 16 2009 And if memory serves me correctly, that was the direct result of
- Stewart Gordon (26/55) Jul 16 2009 I'm not sure OTTOMH, but I'm sure there are some. Nor am I quite sure
- Steven Schveighoffer (10/26) Jul 16 2009 What's not finished in D1 that Walter isn't already working on because
- Stewart Gordon (14/24) Jul 16 2009 Everything that Walter hasn't yet got round to working on. I guess it's...
- Steven Schveighoffer (20/42) Jul 16 2009 So you think there *are* parts of D1 that are broken or incomplete, yet ...
- Stewart Gordon (19/48) Jul 17 2009 That doesn't factor into what I said at all.
- Bill Baxter (25/30) Jul 17 2009 l
- Stewart Gordon (18/34) Jul 26 2009 But one of D's main design goals is to avoid this.
- Steven Schveighoffer (31/54) Jul 17 2009 OK, so you are worried that D2 shouldn't be declared finished until it's...
- Jarrett Billingsley (22/37) Jul 17 2009 l be
- Bill Baxter (14/48) Jul 17 2009 te:
- Jarrett Billingsley (4/11) Jul 17 2009 It's not incorrect. I'm just saying that rigorously specifying the
With apologies to Bruno Medeiros.... All this talk about getting D2 finished (and other things like what comes next) makes me worried. People talk as if D2 is nearing completion: there are even threads about the coming or even requesting the release of the finished product that D2 will be. For a start, finishing D1 off has to come first. I refer you all back to this discussion: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/When_will_D1_be_finished_89749.html http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Re_When_will_D1_be_finished_89913.html http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Re_When_will_D1_be_finished_89874.html (I don't know why the thread has become split in three.) I've a further feeling that some have suggested declaring D1 obsolete. Except that obsolete would be the wrong word - it would be more a case of D1 becoming a project that was started and then abandoned. Which might sound like a good plan to some. However, I can't at the moment think of any D1 spec issue or major bug that doesn't also affect the D2 line. As such, abandoning D1 will do nothing to bring closer the time when we can freeze the D 2.0 spec. It is thus in the community's best interests to get D1 finished sooner rather than later, as we will then have a D that we can all use and third parties can implement. (Yes, I know I should contribute to the effort. Trouble is that, now I have a job, my time for stuff like this is limited. But hopefully some time I'll find the time to do some work on it.) Once D1 is done and dusted, _then_ we can shift our efforts to polishing D2 ready for finalisation and eventual stable release. But in any case, we need to take things one step at a time. Stewart.
Jul 15 2009
Stewart Gordon wrote:With apologies to Bruno Medeiros.... All this talk about getting D2 finished (and other things like what comes next) makes me worried. People talk as if D2 is nearing completion: there are even threads about the coming or even requesting the release of the finished product that D2 will be. For a start, finishing D1 off has to come first. I refer you all back to this discussion: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/When_will_D1_be finished_89749.html http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Re_When_will_D1_be finished_89913.html http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Re_When_will_D1_be finished_89874.html (I don't know why the thread has become split in three.) I've a further feeling that some have suggested declaring D1 obsolete. Except that obsolete would be the wrong word - it would be more a case of D1 becoming a project that was started and then abandoned. Which might sound like a good plan to some. However, I can't at the moment think of any D1 spec issue or major bug that doesn't also affect the D2 line. As such, abandoning D1 will do nothing to bring closer the time when we can freeze the D 2.0 spec. It is thus in the community's best interests to get D1 finished sooner rather than later, as we will then have a D that we can all use and third parties can implement. (Yes, I know I should contribute to the effort. Trouble is that, now I have a job, my time for stuff like this is limited. But hopefully some time I'll find the time to do some work on it.) Once D1 is done and dusted, _then_ we can shift our efforts to polishing D2 ready for finalisation and eventual stable release. But in any case, we need to take things one step at a time. Stewart.This topic has come up over and over, and the results are always the same: D1 will continue to be supported by Walter & co., but no new features will be in it. There _are_ some longstanding D1 issues (contract inheritance, in particular), but all (or nearly all) of these are issues with D2 as well, so hopefully they'll get fixed for both. In 1.045 and 1.046, a few older bugs started to get fixed, so there is definitely a show of some commitment by Walter towards getting stability in _both_ branches of D. Further, the continued development of Tango & other D1-specific tools and libraries shows a strong community commitment to the language. The LDC community also has been hard at work getting D1 bugs fixed, and LDC has already fixed a few that DMD hasn't (and posted patches Walter hasn't looked at...).
Jul 15 2009
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:22:30 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:With apologies to Bruno Medeiros.... All this talk about getting D2 finished (and other things like what comes next) makes me worried. People talk as if D2 is nearing completion: there are even threads about the coming or even requesting the release of the finished product that D2 will be. For a start, finishing D1 off has to come first.What bugs in D1 are fixed in D2? I think Walter is fixing D1 and D2 bugs in parallel. I think the expectation that D2 will be released soon is because of Andrei's book. I didn't search for the thread where he said the date, and specifically that D2 should be finished by the time the book is released, but I recall it being sometime this year. In any case, I highly doubt that D2 will be "finished" by the time the book is released. Things are in such a state of flux, and there are so many planned, but unimplemented, features, especially surrounding pure functions and multithreading. I would guess that D2 would be in a feature freeze mode, even if some of the features aren't even implemented, kind of like contracts are for D1. If that's the case, then it leaves the door open to implement those features (and for edition 2 of the book!), even though D2 is "finished". -Steve
Jul 15 2009
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer<schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:22:30 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:sWith apologies to Bruno Medeiros.... All this talk about getting D2 finished (and other things like what come=enext) makes me worried. People talk as if D2 is nearing completion: ther=gs inare even threads about the coming or even requesting the release of the finished product that D2 will be. For a start, finishing D1 off has to come first.What bugs in D1 are fixed in D2? =A0I think Walter is fixing D1 and D2 bu=parallel. I think the expectation that D2 will be released soon is because of Andre=i'sbook. =A0I didn't search for the thread where he said the date, and specifically that D2 should be finished by the time the book is released, but I recall it being sometime this year. In any case, I highly doubt that D2 will be "finished" by the time the bo=okis released. =A0Things are in such a state of flux, and there are so many planned, but unimplemented, features, especially surrounding pure functio=nsand multithreading. =A0I would guess that D2 would be in a feature freeze mode, even if some of the features aren't even implemented, kind of like contracts are for D1. =A0If that's the case, then it leaves the door open=toimplement those features (and for edition 2 of the book!), even though D2=is"finished".Well D1.0 was pretty much an arbitrary line in the sand. D2.0release (or whatever they decide to call it) might as well be too. --bb
Jul 15 2009
Bill Baxter wrote:On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer<schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:And if memory serves me correctly, that was the direct result of innumerable request by the community for that line to be drawn. I seriously doubt we want to do the same thing again.On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:22:30 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:Well D1.0 was pretty much an arbitrary line in the sand. D2.0release (or whatever they decide to call it) might as well be too.--bb
Jul 16 2009
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:22:30 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:I'm not sure OTTOMH, but I'm sure there are some. Nor am I quite sure of the relevance of this....With apologies to Bruno Medeiros.... All this talk about getting D2 finished (and other things like what comes next) makes me worried. People talk as if D2 is nearing completion: there are even threads about the coming or even requesting the release of the finished product that D2 will be. For a start, finishing D1 off has to come first.What bugs in D1 are fixed in D2? I think Walter is fixing D1 and D2 bugs in parallel.I think the expectation that D2 will be released soon is because of Andrei's book. I didn't search for the thread where he said the date, and specifically that D2 should be finished by the time the book is released, but I recall it being sometime this year. In any case, I highly doubt that D2 will be "finished" by the time the book is released.IWC the book'll have to work around the ambiguities in the spec. Maybe it can be done....Things are in such a state of flux, and there are so many planned, but unimplemented, features, especially surrounding pure functions and multithreading. I would guess that D2 would be in a feature freeze mode, even if some of the features aren't even implemented, kind of like contracts are for D1.<snip> Contracts have been implemented for as long as I've known D. Are you thinking of something else, e.g. contract inheritance? A distinction must be made between a feature freeze and a spec freeze. In the run-up to 1.0 I pressed for a feature freeze decision to be reached: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/41553.html This was so that the remaining time could be spent making the spec complete and consistent and fixing compiler bugs. Once the spec issues are fixed, a spec freeze can be put in place. This is an issue for anybody wanting to implement D and for any D tools/libraries to reach commercial quality. Sadly, nearly three years on, even D1 isn't quite there yet. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=677Maybe D 2.0 can be considered feature-frozen in the near future, but I still feel that this is a bridge we need to get to before crossing it. And then we'll need to make sure the D 2.0 spec is complete and consistent before freezing that, but can start work on D 2.1 in the meantime. The spec freeze on D 2.0 would be part of the definition of finished in the same way. But let's not let this detract from the task of finishing D1. Stewart.If that's the case, then it leaves the door open to implement those features (and for edition 2 of the book!), even though D2 is "finished".
Jul 16 2009
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:04:25 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:Steven Schveighoffer wrote:What's not finished in D1 that Walter isn't already working on because it's broken in D2 too? My point is, you are worried that D1 won't be finished before D2 is finished, but I'm saying that won't happen if all the bugs in D1 are also in D2. Every release of D2 is coupled with a release of D1, with bugs fixed in both versions. This idea that D1 isn't being worked on seems incorrect to me. -SteveOn Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:22:30 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:I'm not sure OTTOMH, but I'm sure there are some. Nor am I quite sure of the relevance of this....With apologies to Bruno Medeiros.... All this talk about getting D2 finished (and other things like what comes next) makes me worried. People talk as if D2 is nearing completion: there are even threads about the coming or even requesting the release of the finished product that D2 will be. For a start, finishing D1 off has to come first.What bugs in D1 are fixed in D2? I think Walter is fixing D1 and D2 bugs in parallel.
Jul 16 2009
Steven Schveighoffer wrote: <snip>What's not finished in D1 that Walter isn't already working on because it's broken in D2 too?Everything that Walter hasn't yet got round to working on. I guess it's just a matter of what Walter's priorities are.My point is, you are worried that D1 won't be finished before D2 is finished,No I'm not. I'm worried by people seemingly asking for D2's stake in the ground to be placed before D2 is finished, which'll be even worse if even D1 isn't finished by that time.but I'm saying that won't happen if all the bugs in D1 are also in D2. Every release of D2 is coupled with a release of D1, with bugs fixed in both versions. This idea that D1 isn't being worked on seems incorrect to me.This idea isn't part of anything I said, so I don't know where you got it from. What I may have said, however, is something to the effect that the bits of D1 being worked on don't seem to be the major ones towards D1 being finished, such as cleaning up the spec. One thing I do know is that it's been ages since anything under issue 677 that I filed has been fixed. Stewart.
Jul 16 2009
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:23:30 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:Steven Schveighoffer wrote: <snip>So you think there *are* parts of D1 that are broken or incomplete, yet working properly in D2? An example would be nice.What's not finished in D1 that Walter isn't already working on because it's broken in D2 too?Everything that Walter hasn't yet got round to working on. I guess it's just a matter of what Walter's priorities are.In order for D2 to be finished, D1 will be finished, because D2's bugs, or incompletions, encompass D1's bugs.My point is, you are worried that D1 won't be finished before D2 is finished,No I'm not. I'm worried by people seemingly asking for D2's stake in the ground to be placed before D2 is finished, which'll be even worse if even D1 isn't finished by that time.I got it from when you said D1 should be finished before D2 is finished. My point is, yeah, that's a given considering all of D1's bugs exist as bugs in D2.but I'm saying that won't happen if all the bugs in D1 are also in D2. Every release of D2 is coupled with a release of D1, with bugs fixed in both versions. This idea that D1 isn't being worked on seems incorrect to me.This idea isn't part of anything I said, so I don't know where you got it from.What I may have said, however, is something to the effect that the bits of D1 being worked on don't seem to be the major ones towards D1 being finished, such as cleaning up the spec. One thing I do know is that it's been ages since anything under issue 677 that I filed has been fixed.Large successful D1 projects still seem to exist without a complete spec. I'm not so sure a complete D1 spec would miraculously spark a D revolution. I have a few outstanding bugs myself that could be fixed, but Walter is only one guy. And he's trying to get his vision for D2 working, so he can stop saying "trust me, this way is better" and start saying "see, this way is better, here's the proof". I can understand that. All I'm saying is, you're not going to get an engineer to stop working on the interesting fun project to go dot i's and cross t's on a mostly functional prior project, except for probably bug-fixes. Especially when he does it for free :) -Steve
Jul 16 2009
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:23:30 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:That doesn't factor into what I said at all. <snip>Steven Schveighoffer wrote: <snip>So you think there *are* parts of D1 that are broken or incomplete, yet working properly in D2? An example would be nice.What's not finished in D1 that Walter isn't already working on because it's broken in D2 too?Everything that Walter hasn't yet got round to working on. I guess it's just a matter of what Walter's priorities are.I got it from when you said D1 should be finished before D2 is finished. My point is, yeah, that's a given considering all of D1's bugs exist as bugs in D2.You're confusing being actually finished with being declared finished. First D1 must be actually finished. Then D2 must be actually finished. This we seem to agree on. Then, and only then, can D2 sensibly be declared finished. Simple. But it seems people are wanting to meddle with this order, and this is what I've been getting at all along. (OK, so my original post did talk of "All this talk about getting D2 finished". I probably just hadn't quite found the right words at that point.)Simple. Once we have a complete D1 spec, major software companies will be ready to implement D. When a major software company implements D, it'll become more widely known to the masses. This'll also pave the way for D to taken up by the software industry on a significant scale. <snip>What I may have said, however, is something to the effect that the bits of D1 being worked on don't seem to be the major ones towards D1 being finished, such as cleaning up the spec. One thing I do know is that it's been ages since anything under issue 677 that I filed has been fixed.Large successful D1 projects still seem to exist without a complete spec. I'm not so sure a complete D1 spec would miraculously spark a D revolution.All I'm saying is, you're not going to get an engineer to stop working on the interesting fun project to go dot i's and cross t's on a mostly functional prior project, except for probably bug-fixes. Especially when he does it for free :)Can you think of an undotted i (for as long as we aren't doing this in Turkish) or an uncrossed t that doesn't qualify as a bug? Stewart.
Jul 17 2009
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Stewart Gordon<smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Simple. =A0Once we have a complete D1 spec, major software companies will=beready to implement D. =A0When a major software company implements D, it'l=lbecome more widely known to the masses. =A0This'll also pave the way for =D totaken up by the software industry on a significant scale.This is delusional. Major software companies aren't going to start implementing D just because the spec is finished. There's no market for it when the original compiler is given away for free. And if someone really thought there was a major market for a D compiler with fewer bugs, I don't think the holes in the spec would stop them from trying to implement it. I mean why do you think we have all this #ifdef mess in cross -platform C/C++ projects? Everyone implemented the spec slightly differently. They clearly were not deterred by the fact that they didn't understand the spec 100%. That's because there was a customer demand for a C++ compiler on their platform, so they wrote one. And they charged their customers $500 or more for it. But those days are gone. You can't make a business out of charging $500 for just a compiler anymore. If anything you've got to go into dev tools like fancy IDEs and such. But even then it's a tough market when you're talking about a niche language. But if D were to become wildly popular... that's a different story. That's what would make major software companies take notice. When customers in large numbers start asking why Major Software Company doesn't support D, or have their own D compiler, then Major Software Company will start to take interest. --bb
Jul 17 2009
Bill Baxter wrote: <snip>This is delusional. Major software companies aren't going to start implementing D just because the spec is finished. There's no market for it when the original compiler is given away for free. And if someone really thought there was a major market for a D compiler with fewer bugs, I don't think the holes in the spec would stop them from trying to implement it. I mean why do you think we have all this #ifdef mess in cross -platform C/C++ projects? Everyone implemented the spec slightly differently. They clearly were not deterred by the fact that they didn't understand the spec 100%.But one of D's main design goals is to avoid this. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/faq.html#q4 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/faq.html#q7_3 (final sentence) Every hole, ambiguity or inconsistency in the spec is a potential portability issue. If people want the mess C++ is in, they know where to find it. I think one reason that companies will want to implement D is to 'sell' a language that doesn't suffer from this problem. As such, I can imagine some wanting to wait until D lives up to its advertising claims, or to hold back when they sooner or later stumble upon one of D's spec problems.That's because there was a customer demand for a C++ compiler on their platform, so they wrote one. And they charged their customers $500 or more for it. But those days are gone. You can't make a business out of charging $500 for just a compiler anymore. If anything you've got to go into dev tools like fancy IDEs and such. But even then it's a tough market when you're talking about a niche language.And many of these fancy IDEs will want to include their own compilers, which would compete in quality with DMD and each other. That's also among D's design goals.But if D were to become wildly popular... that's a different story.<snip> And I think many of us are hoping that it will - myself included. Stewart.
Jul 26 2009
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:36:17 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:Steven Schveighoffer wrote:OK, so you are worried that D2 shouldn't be declared finished until it's finished? What makes you think that will happen? Here's what I think will happen: 1. Walter is satisfied that the set of features he wants to have in D2 are either implemented or well defined (and I hope this includes bug 1961!) 2. He says "no more features." 3. All the "required" features are implemented completely (possibly with bugs). "required" is hard to define, but I trust Walter will know what he thinks is important for an initial release. 4. D2 is declared "stable" (not finished), and no API changes will occur. 5. Bugs are fixed, etc. At the same time, D1 is already in stage 5, so as bugs are fixed in D2, they are also fixed in D1 (since they are loosely based on the same code). I don't have any problem with the state of things, and I don't consider D1 or it's spec being finished a critical part of D's success.I got it from when you said D1 should be finished before D2 is finished. My point is, yeah, that's a given considering all of D1's bugs exist as bugs in D2.You're confusing being actually finished with being declared finished.First D1 must be actually finished. Then D2 must be actually finished. This we seem to agree on. Then, and only then, can D2 sensibly be declared finished. Simple. But it seems people are wanting to meddle with this order, and this is what I've been getting at all along.I don't think so. I think people want D2 to be free from breaking changes like D1 is. Without this, it's hard to write code for a moving target. Even if D2 is not "finished," if it's not changing (except for bug fixes) then it's usable for long term projects.What major company is going to write a compiler for D1 when D2 is almost ready for feature-freeze? I think D1 missed that boat.Large successful D1 projects still seem to exist without a complete spec. I'm not so sure a complete D1 spec would miraculously spark a D revolution.Simple. Once we have a complete D1 spec, major software companies will be ready to implement D. When a major software company implements D, it'll become more widely known to the masses. This will also pave the way for D to taken up by the software industry on a significant scale.<snip>No, but as evidenced by the success of large projects like Tango (I've used it to write pretty interesting stuff for my company), the bugs are not show stoppers, similar to how an undotted i does not ruin the meaning of the text containing it, it's just a superficial issue. And spec bugs aren't even close to show stoppers, since they just don't reflect the actual behavior, especially since all compilers right now are based on the reference design (dmd). -SteveAll I'm saying is, you're not going to get an engineer to stop working on the interesting fun project to go dot i's and cross t's on a mostly functional prior project, except for probably bug-fixes. Especially when he does it for free :)Can you think of an undotted i (for as long as we aren't doing this in Turkish) or an uncrossed t that doesn't qualify as a bug?
Jul 17 2009
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Bill Baxter<wbaxter gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Stewart Gordon<smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrot=e:l beSteven Schveighoffer wrote: Simple. =A0Once we have a complete D1 spec, major software companies wil=llready to implement D. =A0When a major software company implements D, it'=D tobecome more widely known to the masses. =A0This'll also pave the way for=But I thought that's exactly what D was trying to *avoid*: being an implementation nightmare. The very first quote on the front page of the D site is "Maybe it's time for a new language born out of practical experience implementing compilers." If D wants to be easy to implement, shouldn't it have a decent roadmap for doing so? Fleshing out the spec is useful for more than just making new implementations. It also shines light on dark, forgotten corners, exposing potential bugs and incorrect implementation of the spec in the reference compiler. It also brings attention to features which maybe were misdesigned from the start, or which didn't take into account other features, or which have "rotted" as other features were added. Improving the spec is not just a matter of documenting what the compiler does; it improves the language as a whole. And from a personal perspective, I've found that in specifying language features, if it's difficult to explain to others, chances are it's better off either being left out or being redesigned. It's had a very beneficial effect on the quality of my own language.taken up by the software industry on a significant scale.This is delusional. =A0Major software companies aren't going to start implementing D just because the spec is finished. =A0There's no market for it when the original compiler is given away for free. =A0And if someone really thought there was a major market for a D compiler with fewer bugs, I don't think the holes in the spec would stop them from trying to implement it. =A0I mean why do you think we have all this #ifdef mess in cross -platform C/C++ projects? =A0Everyone implemented the spec slightly differently. =A0They clearly were not deterred by the fact that they didn't understand the spec 100%.
Jul 17 2009
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Jarrett Billingsley<jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Bill Baxter<wbaxter gmail.com> wrote:te:On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Stewart Gordon<smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wro=ll beSteven Schveighoffer wrote: Simple. =A0Once we have a complete D1 spec, major software companies wi='llready to implement D. =A0When a major software company implements D, it=r D tobecome more widely known to the masses. =A0This'll also pave the way fo=Seems to me like popularity of languages tends to precede detailed specifications generally. Having a 100% complete spec has merits I'm sure but it doesn't really correlate much with language adoption as far as I can tell. Having a language and tool chain that work well and make life easy for programmers seems to have much more importance. Is this incorrect from what you've seen? --bbBut I thought that's exactly what D was trying to *avoid*: being an implementation nightmare. =A0The very first quote on the front page of the D site is "Maybe it's time for a new language born out of practical experience implementing compilers." =A0If D wants to be easy to implement, shouldn't it have a decent roadmap for doing so? Fleshing out the spec is useful for more than just making new implementations. =A0It also shines light on dark, forgotten corners, exposing potential bugs and incorrect implementation of the spec in the reference compiler. =A0It also brings attention to features which maybe were misdesigned from the start, or which didn't take into account other features, or which have "rotted" as other features were added. =A0Improving the spec is not just a matter of documenting what the compiler does; it improves the language as a whole. And from a personal perspective, I've found that in specifying language features, if it's difficult to explain to others, chances are it's better off either being left out or being redesigned. =A0It's had a very beneficial effect on the quality of my own language.taken up by the software industry on a significant scale.This is delusional. =A0Major software companies aren't going to start implementing D just because the spec is finished. =A0There's no market for it when the original compiler is given away for free. =A0And if someone really thought there was a major market for a D compiler with fewer bugs, I don't think the holes in the spec would stop them from trying to implement it. =A0I mean why do you think we have all this #ifdef mess in cross -platform C/C++ projects? =A0Everyone implemented the spec slightly differently. =A0They clearly were not deterred by the fact that they didn't understand the spec 100%.
Jul 17 2009
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Bill Baxter<wbaxter gmail.com> wrote:Seems to me like popularity of languages tends to precede detailed specifications generally. Having a 100% complete spec has merits I'm sure but it doesn't really correlate much with language adoption as far as I can tell. =A0Having a language and tool chain that work well and make life easy for programmers seems to have much more importance. =A0Is this incorrect from what you've seen?It's not incorrect. I'm just saying that rigorously specifying the language can certainly go a long way to making a solid compiler, and therefore a better toolchain.
Jul 17 2009