1.0 ??

[Walter Bright]

BCS wrote:
> 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.

While an independent implementation of D would be worthwhile for many 
reasons, there are many very successful languages for which only one 
implementation exists - such as Perl, Ruby, etc., so it is not a 
requirement.

What I think is critical for the success of a single implementation 
language is it being open source, which D is.