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

[Sean Kelly]

Don Clugston wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Kyle Furlong wrote:
>>> *Standing Ovation*
>>
>> Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
>> it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
>> before 1.0.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I think it's a two-step process. My opinion:
> Announce a 1.0 feature freeze immediately. Don't actually announce DMD 
> 1.0 until the regressions related to protection are fixed. A 1.0 
> announcement is a major public relations opportunity (one of the biggest 
> the language will get), it's important to avoid a PR disaster. But 
> internally, we can view 0.162 as DMD 1.0 RC1.

Agreed.  As soon as the feature list for 1.0 is decided and any 
contentious issues have been resolved (ie. the visibility issue being 
discussed now) I think an announced feature freeze would be the proper 
first step towards a 1.0 release.  Compiler bugs could continue to be 
worked on, and perhaps a joint effort could be made to fill out the spec 
in places it's either confusing or sparse.


Sean