DMD needs branches

[Ameer Armaly]

"Chris Miller" <chris at dprogramming.com> wrote in message 
news:op.tqmzf7bzpo9bzi at tanu2003.tanu2003net.local...
> I'm sure this was brought up in the past, but DMD definitely needs stable 
> and unstable branches.
>
> -v1 doesn't cut it. My code is compiled with -v1 and still breaks with new 
> DMD versions.
>
> Each new DMD version is bug-ridden. This new one 1.011 is pretty bad!
>
> How am I supposed to let others use my code when there's no stability in 
> the compiler? They update their compiler and report to me "your code is 
> broken"; well, no, DMD is broken.
>
> I have a ton of code that doesn't work on any of the new DMD compilers; I 
> have to use an old pre-1.0 compiler, because the recent compilers are 
> bug-ridden. Some bugs get fixed, but even more get added.
>
> I'm sure a lot of you out there have similar experiences. Speak up now, 
> please!
>
> With each new release I get more and more frustrated with D. There's no 
> stability! I know you want more and more features, but how can I keep 
> using a language like this?
>
> -
>
> I know, I know, report bugs. This doesn't cut it. Reporting bugs is hard 
> as hell and time consuming. I need time to report bugs. Now I have to 
> either restrict use to specific compiler versions, which people don't 
> always know about and report their issues back to me, until I remind them 
> they need to downgrade their compiler (which isn't always an option if 
> they need bug fixes), or I have to rush to fix my code to workaround such 
> issues and report bugs. If there was a stable branch, I could get the code 
> working with the unstable branch at a reasonable pace.
>
> -
>
> D 1.0 means nothing. The 1.0 release was a huge flop. I think it could 
> have done so much better and retained more users. We need some stability 
> and to try the big release one more time. "D 1.1 release 'whoops, got it 
> right this time'" (hopefully).
>
> Also, the documentation should probably clearly state differences between 
> versions, perhaps even with the words "unstable" near the things not in 
> the stable branch. (Safe to ignore 1.0 since it's pointless.)
>
> -
>
> I've had all this in the back of my mind for quite some time and I've 
> tried to be patient about it. I'm not trying threaten anyone, but I don't 
> know how much longer I'm going to put up with D with its current methods. 
> Note that I am probably one of the oldest D users still using it.
>
I agree. If D ever wants to be practically deployable in the real world it 
has to be stable; coders need to have a relatively consistent compiler and 
language and say "here, this is d."
> -
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> - Christopher E. Miller
> www.dprogramming.com
> miller[] on #D freenode.