digitalmars.D.learn - Backporting
- bearophile (4/4) Sep 24 2007 I'd like to see some useful small things be backported from 2.x to 1.x, ...
- Jarrett Billingsley (5/9) Sep 24 2007 No, see, the entire purpose of the split between 1.0 and 2.0 is that 1.0...
- Bill Baxter (14/25) Sep 24 2007 I agree with Bearophile, not that it will make any difference.
- lurk (2/15) Sep 24 2007 and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer version 2....
- Frits van Bommel (3/18) Sep 24 2007 ??
- lurk (3/22) Sep 24 2007 meant to be sarcastic.
- Daniel Keep (14/24) Sep 24 2007 "Hey guys, let's update Tango to support 2.0; it'll take a while, but
- Bill Baxter (5/37) Sep 24 2007 Which is exactly why cherry picking some backward-compatible features
- Daniel Keep (13/36) Sep 25 2007 No, the point was that "nobody" supports 2.0 because no-one wants to try
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). Bear hugs, bearophile
Sep 24 2007
"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).No, see, the entire purpose of the split between 1.0 and 2.0 is that 1.0 won't get any new features. It's a done deal. All new features now go into 2.0.
Sep 24 2007
Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote in message news:fd8gnt$149q$1 digitalmars.com...I agree with Bearophile, not that it will make any difference. In an ideal, manpower-unlimited world I'd say we'd have 3 versions of D: 1) D1.x stable which will not get new features (current D1.x), 2) D2.x which would get new features but do its best not to break old code, and 3) "D.X" would be the next-generation "eXperimental" D that breaks with backward compatibility (i.e. the current 2.x), and maybe occasionally just plain breaks. But the real world is not manpower-unlimited, and one guy maintaining three versions of the compiler is not really feasible. :-( And maintaining versions 1) and 3) is clearly less of a load on Walter than 2) and 3). --bbI'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).No, see, the entire purpose of the split between 1.0 and 2.0 is that 1.0 won't get any new features. It's a done deal. All new features now go into 2.0.
Sep 24 2007
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote in message news:fd8gnt$149q$1 digitalmars.com...and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer version 2.0I'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).No, see, the entire purpose of the split between 1.0 and 2.0 is that 1.0 won't get any new features. It's a done deal. All new features now go into 2.0.
Sep 24 2007
lurk wrote:Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:?? AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ..."bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote in message news:fd8gnt$149q$1 digitalmars.com...and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer version 2.0I'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).No, see, the entire purpose of the split between 1.0 and 2.0 is that 1.0 won't get any new features. It's a done deal. All new features now go into 2.0.
Sep 24 2007
Frits van Bommel Wrote:lurk wrote:meant to be sarcastic. 2.x is need, but nobody supports it.Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:?? AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ..."bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote in message news:fd8gnt$149q$1 digitalmars.com...and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer version 2.0I'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).No, see, the entire purpose of the split between 1.0 and 2.0 is that 1.0 won't get any new features. It's a done deal. All new features now go into 2.0.
Sep 24 2007
lurk wrote:Frits van Bommel Wrote:"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. :) -- Daniellurk wrote:meant to be sarcastic. 2.x is need, but nobody supports it.and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer version 2.0?? AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ...
Sep 24 2007
Daniel Keep wrote:lurk wrote: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? --bbFrits van Bommel Wrote:"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. :) -- Daniellurk wrote:meant to be sarcastic. 2.x is need, but nobody supports it.and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer version 2.0?? AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ...
Sep 24 2007
Bill Baxter wrote:Daniel Keep wrote: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++. -- Daniellurk wrote: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? --bbFrits van Bommel Wrote:[Silliness] -- Daniellurk wrote:meant to be sarcastic. 2.x is need, but nobody supports it.and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer version 2.0?? AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ...
Sep 25 2007