Who favors the current D1 situation?

[Jason House]

Bill Baxter wrote:

> Currently as we all know, D1 gets no new features, and D2 is a crazy
> rocketship that could change direction at any moment.
> 
> Now I know a lot of people were asking for D to become more stable pre
> D1 days, but is this really what you wanted?
> 
> I had initially assumed that the freeze on D1 was at least as much due
> to time constraints on Walter as it was due to a desire for stability.
> But in a recent message Walter said that wasn't the case.  He said that
> backporting things from D2 to D1 was pretty trivial.
> 
> So really then, it to comes down to Walter believing that the D
> community wants D1 to be feature frozen.
> 
> Is it really true?  Is there a group of folks who really want D1 to be
> frozen?
> 
> I myself would like to see D1 get all new features that won't break
> existing source code.
> 
> Things like:
> * New string literals
>    - q{a=b} D-token string syntax,
>    - delimited strings, q"(...)"
>    - heredocs, q"EOF...
> * IFTI that works even if you specify one parameter,
> * Enhanced is expression
>    - is ( Type Identifier : TypeSpecialization , TemplateParameterList )
>    - is ( Type Identifier == TypeSpecialization , TemplateParameterList )
> * foreach(i; 0..10) syntax (ForeachRangeLiteral)
> * Overload sets
> 
> 
> I'm all with the sentiment that D1 code that compiles today should
> compile tomorrow.  That kind of stability is great.  But if it's not a
> big time commitment for Walter (which he says it's not), I see no good
> reason to keep new backwards-compatible features out of D1.
> 
> I've heard other folks saying they want this from D1 too, but what I
> haven't heard is a great swell of active D developers saying that new
> features would be a detriment to their work.
> 
> --bb,
> (who has now written and/or ported about 200,000 lines of D according to
> a quick check with 'wc')


I'm a D 1.x user who's ready to try D 2.x.  My only problem is that I use
Tango, so I wait patiently.  I'm ok with D 1.x being very stable and only
including fixes of obvious bugs.  Should there be something between a very
stable 1.0xxx and 2.x?  Maybe.  I guess the question is how much stability
is desired?  Why not move to 2.x now that const is stable?

--jason
(who has now written and/or ported about 9,000 lines of D according to a
quick check with 'wc')