1.0 ??

[Charlie]

Excremental :) ?  Freudian slip or spell check gone awry ?

 > As to an un-stable versions of D, maybe an excremental compiler could be
 > made.



BCS wrote:
>  >Georg Wrede wrote:
>  >1.0?
>  >
>  > Does that imply a simultaneous 1.0 for D and DMD??
>  >
>  > Suppose they were decoupled. Then we might decide on D 1.0 (say in
>  > December) and from there go on with fixing library issues,
>  > *installing* issues (especially on Linux), and even try to create a
>  > package that strives to be as good as Shrink-Wrap, i.e. simply work
>  > out of the box, and be somewhat usable regarding GUI development. Say,
>  > in March.
>  >
> 
> I have always thought that it should be done that way. DMD is not D.
> 
> Actually, I think it should be D v1.0 RC1. I don't think that it should 
> be carved in stone until someone other than Walter writes a complete 
> reimplementation of the compiler. Not to belittle Walter (who is doing a 
> great job) and DMD (which is a great program), but as it stands 
> everything depends on one code base. The DMD frontend. A second 
> independent implementation would remove another unknown from the future 
> of D. Furthermore, doing a complete reimplementation, would provide an 
> opportunity to make sure that the spec consistent and is up to date with 
> the language. It would also likely find some more of the bugs in DMD.
> 
> <rant>
> I know it is to much to ask but, if it were up to me, even more should 
> be reimplemented before everything is set in stone. I wouldn't allow 
> whoever is reimplementing D to look at how DMD works any more than they 
> need to to write the new compiler (which would be written in D of 
> course). This would include forbidding them to see how the stuff is done 
> "under the hood". The hope would be that they might come up with a 
> better way of making things work.
> </rant>
> 
> 
>  > In the meantime we could polish DMD, interact with the GDC guys to get
>  > the two exactly alike, and then maybe even write some example code
>  > with more user value than the current printf-Hello-World style
>  > examples.
>  >
> 
> votes++;
> 
> [...]
>  >
>  > We might also promise to not publish a new (stable) version within 12
>  > months of 1.0. (This may really be a more important promise for the
>  > customers and prospective developers and consultants than we here
>  > realize just off-hand.)
> 
> I hope you mean no new versions of D. I would hope that Walter would 
> still attack the DMD bug list with the same kind of aggressiveness that 
> he has shown in the past.
> 
> As to an un-stable versions of D, maybe an excremental compiler could be 
> made. For example I have been working on a D compiler (after several 
> months of off and on work I'm not quite done with the *lexer*, so don't 
> go getting all excited) that is intended to be as easy as possible to 
> modify. The idea being that it can be a test bed for new features. To 
> begin with I plan to  implement the official D feature set. After that, 
> new features would be added with versions statements so that people 
> would be able to try working with and without whatever features they want.
> 
>  As I have no plans to make it fast or put in any optimization what so 
> ever, I don't think that there will be any risk of anyone using it for 
> any major work.