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

[Stewart Gordon]

jcc7 wrote:
> In article <e90ai8$26ve$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
>> 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
> 
> That'd be nice. I don't know if the current gaps in the spec are big enough to
> prevent D 1.0 though.

These certainly are big enough from where I am:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/21572.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/26273.html

Regarding the latter, Walter has mentioned the idea of an implicit 
pinning system, but it has yet to make it into the spec.

>> (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.
<snip>

But cleaning up some of the functions in std.socket to throw an 
exception rather than practising the dreaded art of using return values 
to indicate error conditions is something that'd better be done sooner 
rather than later so that it doesn't break too much existing code.

Stewart.