Do we need a time-out in D evolution?

[BCS]

Reply to Clay,

> eao197 Wrote:
> 
>> I'm watching for discussions 'Stepping back and looking at constness
>> from  another angle' here and 'resizeable arrays: T[new]' &
>> 'preparing for  const, final, and invariant' in
>> digitalmars.D.announce and I'm sad. I  occasionally locked to D may
>> be from 2003 -- it was a constantly changing  language. At the end of
>> 2006 I thought that D is stable enough to start to  use it. And in
>> Jan 2007 the v.1.000 went out. I thought that in near time  D would
>> have only bug fix releases and it is a time when various tools for  D
>> (like libraries and IDEs) would be produced.
>> 
>> But I was wrong.
>> 
>> What we have now? The language which keeps their evolution. Lack of
>> libraries, lack of tools, lack of documentation (books and
>> tutorials). As  a consequence -- lack of users. And we don't get much
>> new users and new  applications without new
>> libraries/tools/documentation.
>> 
>> As a programmer I need a stable language. A language in which I can
>> write  a domain-specific library and forget about its maintenace for
>> three of  five years (as for some of my C++ libraries those I wrote
>> in 2002-2003). I  need to write applications and because of that I
>> need a quality and stable  compiler, a quality and stable standard
>> library, and quality third party  libraries. And third party
>> libraries' writters need a stable tools too.
>> 
>> But now, when I'm writting some D code, I know that in near feature
>> the  next D version will be here. And that version broke my code
>> because of  consts and new syntax of resizeable arrays. So why to
>> start a new big  project on D if its codebase will be obsolete in few
>> months?
>> 
>> And I'm affraid that after adding consts/final/invariant support to D
>> the  language keeps their envolution :(
>> 
>> Yes consts/final/invariant is a great addition to the language. But D
>> now  is very powerful language. It is now more powerful than C++0x
>> will be. So  may be it is better to stop add new features and make a
>> stable platform  for library/tools writters at first and then for
>> applications writters?  AFAIK, every successful languages were going
>> such way -- the good initial  release and some new releases later
>> with years of stability beetwen them.  And I'm affraid that C++0x
>> will be here before D would get a stable  language with enough
>> libraries and tools.
>> 
>> May be it is better to concentrate on improvement of the current
>> implementation (fast precise GC instead of the current conservative
>> GC,  for example) instead of introducing incompatible changes in the
>> language?
>> 
>> And my main question is: will be D a constanly changing language or
>> will  be there some time-outs in its evolution?
>> 
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Yauheni Akhotnikau
> D 1.0 is locked, the features you are talking about are D 2.0
> features.
> 

we're all so used to using beta around here that that has almost no meaning