standardization of D

[Ameer Armaly]

"Dan" <murpsoft at hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ev1ch5$t6u$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Ameer Armaly Wrote:
>
>> 1. 1.0 doesn't appear to be any special sort of marker with regard to the
>> standard; we have not only CTFE but mixins added post-1.0, along with
>> numerous changes to the _standard_library. I understand the compiler can 
>> be
>> made to strictly conform to the 1.0 spec,
>
> Exactly, so you can continue to develop for the 1.0 spec, and that code 
> will work, to my understanding, as advertised.
>
>>but the fact still remains it
>> seems very ad hoc.
>
>> Then, the whole D language, including standard library, ought to be 
>> frozen
>> for several years to let it proliferate throughout the technical 
>> community;
>
> I totally disagree with this statement.  We have a frozen implementation 
> of D 1.0, and a frozen spec for the language of D 1.0.  That can 
> proliferate as much as people like.  I feel that as long as future 1.x 
> compilers support 1.0 code, people can write 1.0 code and it will work 
> universally on people's compilers.
>
Perhaps, but (1) the standard libraries aren't standard, and (2) it looks 
less intuitive to someone who takes a glance at the language for the first 
time.
>> an experimental compiler can of course undergo development, but clearly
>> marked as such and _separate_ from the stable compiler.
>> 2. We have two competing standard libraries; this is nowhere near good.
>
> I feel that this is perfectly fine.  People can develop a program using 
> either library and I can compile it on my system.  10 libraries would be 
> retarded, and very bad.  2 really isn't.
>
>> Phobos is basically built on C wherever possible and sort of thrown
>> together, and Tango reminds me of Java with a class for everything and 
>> then
>> some. For the standard's sake (and consequent adoption), D needs one
>> accepted standard library.
>
> I disagree, in fact being able to plug in a library according to your 
> programming philosophy will probably allow us to develop superior 
> programs.
>
Maybe, but everyone here can testify to the cumbersome nature of plugging in 
any one library; it's not quite as easy as all that. Besides, look at C; it 
has one standard library but you could build anything you want on top of it. 
The idea is not so much that one implimentation be better, but that one be 
constant; many programs have to write standard C or posix functions because 
they aren't present on certain operating systems. Besides, if one program 
had to be compiled with one lib but everything else with another, you have 
to go through that whole process unnecessarily.
>> The current state makes that difficult because
>> Walter is forced to hand-manage both the compiler and library. What ought 
>> to
>> happen IMO is that Walter should delegate day to day library management 
>> to a
>> trusted associate who will occasionally inform Walter of the latest
>> developments; Walter makes the final call, and life goes on.
>
> My understanding is that Walter develops and maintains D and D language 
> spec; and that he wrote the original Phobos.  I think someone else is 
> maintaining Phobos under that system, while yet someone else is 
> maintaining Tango and releasing without constant verification from 
> Walter - and with Walter's occasional contributions.
>
>> So to conclude, these are issues that have been sort of addressed at 
>> various
>> times in other issues, but never to a point that accomplished the 
>> intended
>> goal. The D community is growing; there are going to be a lot of new 
>> people
>> that look at it now and say "Huh? Say again?" Maybe we ought to step back
>> and forget the years we've had to become comfortable with D and analyze 
>> it
>> from a potential user's point of view in order to make adoption easier.
>
> D is constantly being nitpicked on this forum - and the fact that it 
> hasn't been feature frozen has allowed it to continue to be nitpicked and 
> evolve into a better language.  I feel that the current process Walter is 
> employing is almost even more important than the language itself; as 
> clearly C++ and C stagnated leading for a need to replace those languages.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dan
>