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

[Dave]

jcc7 wrote:
> 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

I agree 1.0 should be soon (as-in certainly by winter considering an RC 
with all features frozen and such), however I just want to point out 
that 5-6 years seems about right for a new language gestation so I'm not 
overly concerned that we're behind the curve there. For example, I think 
Java as we know it was conceived in early '91 and didn't really take off 
until early '96 or so, right? I think Walter started work on D in '01.