stability

[Edward Diener]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 24/02/2008, Derek Parnell <derek at psych.ward> wrote:
>>  So I would imagine that before another D compiler is written, a
>>  specification is created that forms the benchmark to measure what is a
>>  conforming D compiler.
> 
> Specifications can have bugs in them too.
> 
> That's why specifications have continual addenda and/or new versions.
> Without that, conforming implementations would be forced to implement
> bugs.
> 
> The /real/ definition of a bug is probably "doesn't do what the
> designer intended it to do". That's certainly true when /I/ write code
> - if it doesn't do what I want, it's a bug. /Sometimes/ what I want it
> to do is comply with a spec, in which case non-compliance is a bug,
> but other times I'm creating something new, but in either case, a bug
> is "it doesn't do what I intended".
> 
> In the case of D, I'm happy that Walter is not constrained to a
> possibly buggy spec.

I heavily disagree with this attitude.

Unless users of a computer language have a specification which defines 
that language for them and which they can use to know whether or not 
what they are doing is correct or not, that language can not be successful.

It is of no interest to end users what Walter intended, as opposed to 
what is written as the specification.

I would strongly urge Walter and the active members of the D community 
to ensure that the specification for versions 1 and 2 of D always remain 
as relevant as possible and that the specifications be available and 
downloadable from a single centralized place.