Criteria for 1.0 (was: Re: If D becomes a failure, what's the

[jcc7]

In article <e90gih$2f7i$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Johan Granberg says...
>
>jcc7 wrote:
>>> Tony wrote:
>>> (b) a fully documented and reasonably clean standard library
>> 
>> I don't think we should wait that long. Phobos isn't perfect, but I think it's
>> good enough for D 1.0.
>> 
>
>I agree on that. As I see it phobos is a library using a very productive 
>style, through sometimes their is parts missing. A good standard library 
>dont have to bee bloated or monolithic. However I think their is a few 
>issues in phobos that need to be fixed before 1.0, most notably string 
>functions for wchar[] and dchar[] and standard containers (others can 
>certainly think of other things). But I think that thees shortcomings 
>can bee quickly solved (a few months maybe 1 or 2) once we get a feature 
>freeze of the specification.

I just think calling it "D 1.0" is about the language specification being frozen
(which could happen soon), and the standard library doesn't need to be fully
fleshed out for D 1.0. It'd be nice if it were (I'm not trying discourage people
from pointing out the problems in Phobos or offering fixes), but I think D 1.0
needs to arrive sooner rather than later to help with D's public image. 

D has been in development for many years, and eventually people just shrug and
say, "Yeah, D might be nice, but it's just an experiment with no major releases
in sight".

jcc7