If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

[Don Clugston]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Don Clugston wrote:
>> IMHO, the lack of details about 1.0 is the biggest problem. In 
>> particular, the uncertainty about the level of support we can expect 
>> for implicit function template instantiation makes template library 
>> development difficult.
> 
> Right now, the lack of partial specialization support in the ifti in D 
> is a bug. It is intended that it work just like in C++.

Fantastic! That's very helpful.

> 
> So the question I have is, does D 1.0 have to be bug-free? I don't think 
>  so.

No, it doesn't. But for developing libraries, when there are bugs like 
that with serious implications for library design, you have to make a 
decision. If it's a bug that won't ever be fixed in 1.0, it's worth 
spending a lot of time developing a workaround. But, if it's a 
limitation that's likely to disappear in the next few compiler releases, 
you're wasting your time. Major bugs actually shape the language; in the 
C++ world, Visual C++ 6.0 had so many template bugs that it was a 
language all of its own. So anything you can tell us about what your 
current vision of 1.0 is, will be helpful.

The reality, of course, is that D library writers have never been able 
to keep up with the pace of language change anyway. There's just not 
enough of us :-(.