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

[Kirk McDonald]

Tony wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
> news:e8n9mi$2flp$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>Kyle Furlong wrote:
>>
>>>*Standing Ovation*
>>
>>Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make
>>it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in
>>before 1.0.
>>
>>So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not
>>like D will stop undergoing improvements.
> 
> 
> I've taken the liberty of making this a new thread as the old one was 
> getting a little long.
> 
> 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.
> 

Here's something that has been annoying me, and this week-old thread is 
as good a place as any to bring it up: Shared library support on Linux. 
I could not take D seriously if it did a "1.0" release without this. I 
do hate to cram more on your plate, Walter, but I consider this a more 
serious issue than even this import thing that has gripped the newsgroup 
for the past week.

Now, I am undoubtedly biased: This is a feature that makes Pyd vastly 
more useful. This is true to the point that many potential users of the 
library would dismiss it outright -- laugh in my face, even! -- if I 
suggested they use it when it lacks Linux (and even Mac!) support. Until 
D gets shared libraries on Linux, Pyd will be little more than a toy.

I have little comprehension of the technical hurdles involved here. 
Still, I would consider this to be a high priority for the language.

I will probably be ready to announce the first "release" of Pyd within 
the month. However, I cannot recommend it as a useful library without 
Linux support (where Python has a certain degree of popularity).

I can see D being appealing to the Python crowd. I know some regular 
posters in this newsgroup are into the language (back me up on this, 
guys), and I come from it myself. The utility of Pyd is obvious, in my 
mind. For CPython (the most popular implementation of the language), 
there are only three languages in which you can write extensions: C, 
C++, and now D. [1] Writing extensions in the raw C API is the very 
definition of tedious. C++'s Boost.Python is a nice library, but I for 
one am sick and tired of C++. And so I'm writing Pyd. It fills a niche, 
I think. D and Python! Two great tastes that taste great together!

So please, Walter, add this shared library support. It can't be /that/ 
hard, can it?

[1] Well, in truth you can use just about any language with C linkage, 
but that just means using the C API all over again. I am not aware of 
any libraries built on top of this except for Boost.Python and now Pyd 
that make the experience substantially less painful.

-- 
Kirk McDonald
Pyd: Wrapping Python with D
http://dsource.org/projects/pyd/wiki