Is DMD 0.166 RC 1.0?

[Walter Bright]

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Something I've been wondering: "but nothing about calling it 1.0 will 
>>> prevent that from happening." But then what is the point of calling a 
>>> 1.0 , will there be a branch or some other effect? Or it's just 
>>> marketing?
>>
>> It's simply a stake in the ground. I want to get past the "it's not 
>> usable because it's not 1.0" first impressions people sometimes write.
> 
> Then make some effort to debunk these impressions.  Don't try to work 
> around them.

I learned long ago that it is far easier to swim with the current than 
upstream, especially if one has very limited resources.

> Moreover, just think about what will happen when people see 1.0 and 
> expect to see a well-defined language specification, and maybe even to 
> be ready to write a D compiler themselves.  When they find themselves 
> disappointed, just how bad will the negative image be, and how much work 
> will it take to get rid of it?  Moreover, how will compiler writers, and 
> software houses wanting to adopt D, know when it's OK to come back?

The language spec doesn't need to be at the level of precision of the 
ISO specs (which took many years and the efforts of a couple dozen 
people) to produce. People have written compilers for languages with far 
less. The existence of a stable, reference compiler makes the 
difference, and these days, having an open source one is key.

> Yet another criterion to consider is that the language lives up to its 
> claims.  One of your claims is to make it likely that multiple, correct 
> implementations will be available.  This is impossible as long as the 
> spec still has a number of ill-defined bits.

No, it's not impossible at all. Heck, I've implemented many compilers 
for ill-defined languages (including C and C++). I agree the spec is far 
from perfect, but is it bad enough that it impedes the reasonable 
learning of D? I don't think so, as the D users do not seem to be having 
an unreasonable time learning it.


> OTOH, how many people have you counted who have dismissed D just because 
> it isn't at 1.0?

A lot. I don't have a count.

> Did any of these people tell you that they would come 
> back at 1.0 no matter what condition 1.0 is in?  I'd be surprised.

D is probably the most powerful language that ever was at 1.0.