Is DMD 0.166 RC 1.0?

[Mikola Lysenko]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Any compelling reason why not? I know that everyone (including me) wants 
> more features, more improvements, etc., but nothing about calling it 1.0 
> will prevent that from happening.

I vote for fixing the current D language specification as "1.0," barring 
the discovery of some horrible ambiguity or logical inconsistency. 
Future changes should still be considered, but I think we need to go 
through a few rounds of clean up and bug fixing before we start mutating 
again.  The language is still not as mature as C++ or Java, and it is 
only natural that it will need further revisions.

That said, the compilers need to catch up.  GDC is always bit behind, 
and DMD has several outstanding problems on Linux.  Letting things cook 
for a few releases would settle this out and improve overall confidence.

Also, this would put more attention on library development within the 
community, which is desperately needed.  Phobos is still missing several 
key components such as a GUI and templated containers.  What remains is 
not very trustworthy.  The only two modules I feel comfortable using 
right now are std.stdio and std.math.  The rest are highly suspect, 
especially std.thread.

There needs to be much more critical attention toward the library and 
runtime, and less pointless bickering over what new features to include. 
  In other words, it is time to stop worrying about what D should do, 
and time to discover what it can do.