Backporting

[Daniel Keep]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>> lurk wrote:
>>> Frits van Bommel Wrote:
>>>
>>>> lurk wrote:
>>>>> and the worst is, that the libraries such as tango etc. offer
>>>>> version 2.0
>>>> ??
>>>> AFAIK Tango only supports 1.x ...
>>> meant to be sarcastic.
>>> 2.x is need, but nobody supports it.
>>>
>>
>> [Silliness]
>>
>>     -- Daniel
> 
> 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?
> 
> --bb

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++.

	-- Daniel