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

[Johan Granberg]

jcc7 wrote:
> 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
I'm not speaking of a fully fleshed out phobos I just noted a few issues 
that I think should bee fixed before 1.0. I agree that a 1.0 should bee 
released soon, a good target release date would bee in october, 
september. that way we could have a feature freeze in the language in 
august and make some cleanup (bugs and phobos) before 1.0.