Is DMD 0.166 RC 1.0?

[Walter Bright]

xs0 wrote:
> This is almost OT, but for several Java coders I know, not being able to 
> type
> 
> new int[3][4][5]
> 
> and
> 
> new int[][] {
>    { bibi(), bubu() },
>    { a+b, c+d }
> }
> 
> made a _far_ worse first impression than the version number (as in, 
> quote, "you're kidding, right?"). And it seems so simple to implement.. 
> If you ask me, you really need to add those before going 1.0 (it's bad 
> enough for Javans that Interface[] is not Object[] ;)

My experiences with people who won't use D because it doesn't have 
specific feature X is that they won't use it when feature X is 
implemented, or when Y, Z, A, B and C are implemented. They're used to 
the language they currently use, and will never change.

We can easily get sucked into a rat race trying to please people who 
haven't the slightest inclination to use D (or any language other than 
the one they currently use).

I'd much rather work on the features the people who have *already* 
switched to D need to do outrageously cool things.

You mean Java doesn't have free functions? No out parameters? No nested 
functions? No templates? No versioning? No operator overloading? No lazy 
evaluation? No 80 bit floats? No stack allocation? No structs? No array 
slicing? No direct access to C? You're kidding, right? <g>