Criteria for 1.0 (was: Re: If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?)

Dave Dave_member at pathlink.com
Fri Jul 7 22:47:58 PDT 2006


kris wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>> "Walter Bright"  wrote
>>> So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not
>>> like D will stop undergoing improvements.
>>

My vote too, but in line with what Kris mentions below I think it's 
important to see the following addressed either through better docs. or 
(if it is a bug) a fix for v1.0:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/7649

- Dave

>>
>> I've taken the liberty of making this a new thread as the old one was 
>> getting a little long.
>>
>> Walters post raises the issue of exactly what criteria should be used 
>> to determine when D reaches a state suitable for a 1.0 release.
>>
>> My personal take is that it should be a 1.0 release when Walter 
>> believes that all of the language changes which are expected to break 
>> existing code have been made.  For example, if he expects to add any 
>> further reserved words, reserve them (even if not presently 
>> implemented) prior to the 1.0 release.  Also, any change which alters 
>> the semantics of an existing feature and thus breaks existing code 
>> should be made prior to 1.0.
>>
>> This still leaves bug fixing and additional language features which 
>> don't break existing code for post-1.0 releases.
> 
> Hear Hear!
> 
> One thing to add, though, is a certain /level of expectation/ should be 
> accomodated without significant issue. We don't want to announce a grand 
> opening, so to speak, and have loads of new folks rush through the doors 
> and simply fall through holes in the floor. Would be a public-relations 
> disaster.
> 
> Given that aspect, I suspect there's still certain outstanding "major 
> issues" that really ought to be addressed first? There's no point in 
> jumping the gun if you're going to take a dive at the first hurdle.
> 
> Would there a problem with setting a schedule for release, rather than 
> just being a tad reactive? I mean, what's another month or two to those 
> who really want the language to succeed?



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list