All this talk about 1.0 makes me worried.

[Charles]

 > Hmmm ... discovering that AA's were broken caused some re-engineering;

Lots of talk about AA's recently, I'll have to go back and look through 
the forums / newgroups , if someone has time though what are the current 
problems with them  ( asociative arrays ) ?




kris wrote:
> Charles wrote:
> 
>>  > I suppose many people like the idea of placing a stake in the ground ~
>>  > as means of marking/stamping progress?
>>
>> I know of alot of people ( myself partially included ) that are 
>> waiting for a D 1.0 untill they really commit to using D.  Untill it 
>> reaches a 1.0 ( which feels like never -- in which case if it is going 
>> to take another year or greater we should be talking about how to 
>> handle and work with a perpetually changing language - id be curious 
>> to know how often you have to update mango in response new DMD 
>> releases )  
> 
> 
> There was a bit of turmoil back when it started (~March 2004), but after 
> that? Hmmm ... discovering that AA's were broken caused some 
> re-engineering; the "length" pseudo-keyword issue caused some more. Then 
> there was quite a bit of effort to cleanup using -w. The char, wchar, 
> dchar support could not really have been done until templates came 
> along, so that doesn't really count, I suppose? Mango has always used 
> 'bool' instead of 'bit', so that wasn't an issue. To be honest, I think 
> internal redesign has caused more changes than language evolution.
> 
> 
>> i doubt 'corporations' would even consider using it.  Even post D 1.0 
>> is going to take a big effort from the community to get D in the 
>> mainstream.
> 
> 
> Very true. However, those same corporations likely won't consider D 
> until library support is notably better? I've always felt that would be 
> the sticking point, and that Phobos was a bit thin for that purpose. 
> This leads me to conclude thusly:
> 
> D will not be ready for commercial usage until the availability of 
> libraries reaches some critical mass. Who is going to write those 
> libraries? My guess would be the the early adopters? So, why is it that 
> there's perhaps only a few handfuls of people who are prepared to make 
> that happen? Don't wish to be critical of anyone, or start wagging any 
> fingers, but surely those calling for a v1.0 should be equally 
> determined to construct the libraries?
> 
> - Kris