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

[Don Clugston]

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> <snip>
>> 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.
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, that's part of it.  AISI the prerequisites for 1.0 readiness are:
> (a) a clear, complete and consistent spec
> (b) a fully documented and reasonably clean standard library
> (c) all known serious compiler bugs and most not-so-serious compiler 
> bugs fixed
> (d) as you say, sufficient stability that any language or standard 
> library changes are unlikely to break existing code
> (e) agreement among all of us that the above have been achieved

I don't think that any of those are achievable until a 1.0 language 
feature freeze happens. The language needs to be stable for months 
before there's any chance of a 1.0 library such as you describe.

And I think that (e) is impossible.