1.0 ??

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Walter Bright wrote:

> Don Clugston wrote:
>> I think that's an excellent idea. If, as Walter has said, "1.0" is an
>> arbitrary line in the sand, tying it to a particular date gives a
>> rationale for associating a name to a particular release. If we can say
>> "a DMD 1.0 release will exist on January 1, 2007" (or at least, 1.0 RC
>> 1), we'd gain a lot of focus.
>> 
>> I thought we were really close to a 1.0 release at 0.166, but starting
>> with the array literals in 0.167, a stable release suddenly seems a very
>> long way off.
>> On the positive side, I think that array literals and variadic templates
>> were the two major 2.0 features which were likely to render a lot of
>> library code obselete.
>> 
>> We should choose a date and stick to it. Remove the angst.
> 
> Sounds good to me, and Jan 1, 2007 is a great date to pick.

But there still is no dis-entanglement of D (the spec) and DMD (the
compiler), which really is needed if something like
std.compiler.supported_spec-version is supposed to work.

As far as I am concerned, too little focus is spent on "fixing" the spec.
Bugs are important to fix, but if they are bugs according to a less than
optimal spec, then what's the point?

If we can make sure that we are fairly happy with the specification, and (if
possible) for future features, like const/readonly and others, try to make
the spec less suspectible to breakage when those features _are_ added, then
I'm all for releasing D (the spec) 1.0, preferrably after one or two
release candidates. Whether DMD gains the same version number or not, I
don't much care about, but we then have something real to measure against.
Even if DMD is the reference implementation, it is important that DMD 1.0
don't necessarily equal D 1.0 !

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi