Prime time???

[Gregor Richards]

Charlie wrote:
> The other languages just move much slower ;).
> 
> Its not that new releases break old code ( though it sometimes does ) , 
> its that when new features are added - the old code needs to be 
> refactored to take advantage of the new features.
> 
> I like that D is cutting edge and trying things that haven't been done 
> before, but to develop any lasting code developers need some sort of 
> agreed upon language feature set , so it doesn't feel like we're in a 
> never ending refactoring circle ( this is especially true of library 
> builders I would think ).
> 
> Why not devote a few releases to getting a 1.0 , and continue with a 
> developmental branch , working its way to 2.0, best of both worlds.  I 
> don't want to hinder D  development, and if it takes another few years 
> to get a 1.0 so be it, but I think building up a solid base of existing 
> code is going to be important to getting D into the mainstream.
> 
> Charlie
> 
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Charlie wrote:
>>
>>> I've been fretting over the same thing, and a 'moving target' 
>>> describes it well.
>>>
>>> With all the new additions recently I stopped holding my breath, I 
>>> figure at this rate it'll be another 3 years for a 1.0.
>>
>>
>> But isn't every language a moving target? Doesn't it make sense to 
>> just start using it?

In my opinion, if D branched into D 1.0 (stable) and D 2.0 (unstable), a 
large enough chunk of people would continue to use the unstable branch 
that everybody else would be snowballed in by dependencies et cetera. 
Net accomplishment: Nothing.

  - Gregor Richards