All this talk about finalising D2 makes me worried

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Bill Baxter<wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Stewart Gordon<smjg_1998 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Simple.  Once we have a complete D1 spec, major software companies will be
>> ready to implement D.  When a major software company implements D, it'll
>> become more widely known to the masses.  This'll also pave the way for D to
>> taken up by the software industry on a significant scale.
>
> This is delusional.  Major software companies aren't going to start
> implementing D just because the spec is finished.  There's no market
> for it when the original compiler is given away for free.  And if
> someone really thought there was a major market for a D compiler with
> fewer bugs, I don't think the holes in the spec would stop them from
> trying to implement it.  I mean why do you think we have all this
> #ifdef mess in cross -platform C/C++ projects?  Everyone implemented
> the spec slightly differently.  They clearly were not deterred by the
> fact that they didn't understand the spec 100%.

But I thought that's exactly what D was trying to *avoid*: being an
implementation nightmare.  The very first quote on the front page of
the D site is "Maybe it's time for a new language born out of
practical experience implementing compilers."  If D wants to be easy
to implement, shouldn't it have a decent roadmap for doing so?

Fleshing out the spec is useful for more than just making new
implementations.  It also shines light on dark, forgotten corners,
exposing potential bugs and incorrect implementation of the spec in
the reference compiler.  It also brings attention to features which
maybe were misdesigned from the start, or which didn't take into
account other features, or which have "rotted" as other features were
added.  Improving the spec is not just a matter of documenting what
the compiler does; it improves the language as a whole.

And from a personal perspective, I've found that in specifying
language features, if it's difficult to explain to others, chances are
it's better off either being left out or being redesigned.  It's had a
very beneficial effect on the quality of my own language.