D as first class language in the gcc milestones ?

[ketmar via D.gnu]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 16:39:29 +0000
"Ledd via D.gnu" <d.gnu at puremagic.com> wrote:

> That's because you are not thinking about the "shipping date" as 
> a feature, you are not even considering it as an option.
yes, 'cause FOSS projects has no "shipping dates".

> You will never get 1 single customer if you say "I can do X for 
> you but I can't determine when I'll ship that" . And any 
> developer interested in D is a customer of yours .
i'm not trying to sell them D. they either like it or not, but for me
the primary goal of D is to satisfy *my* needs. i'm tired of tools that
tries to satisfy someone else.

> A predictable release cycle it's absolutely not about "losing 
> features"
i'm talking about long pauses between releases, not about "when it's
done". and about desyncing between GCC and DMD release cycles.

> Also, on average, you get a new release of gcc every 2-3 months,
but not a packages in major distros. besides, main GCC languages (C and
C++) aren't developing at the fast rate of D. and GCC's Go is old, and
GCC's ObjC is old. can't see any good in adding another "always old"
language to GCC.

> the first release of D1 is about 13 years old, D2 is about 7 
> years old, it's probably time to decide whether it will be a 
> rolling-release language as long as it will live or to 
> stabilize/standardize it . I don't think that keeping things as 
> they are will do any good to D .
and i think that D must change alot faster. we still can't remove some
annoyances due to "this will break some code". dfix tool was rejected,
and users telling that they are ready for code breaking are not heard.
damn it, if i want language with such disgusting legacy i can use C++!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/d.gnu/attachments/20140929/19637117/attachment.sig>