All this talk about finalising D2 makes me worried

[Bill Baxter]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Jarrett
Billingsley<jarrett.billingsley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Seems to me like popularity of languages tends to precede detailed
specifications generally.
Having a 100% complete spec has merits I'm sure but it doesn't really
correlate much with language adoption as far as I can tell.  Having a
language and tool chain that work well and make life easy for
programmers seems to have much more importance.  Is this incorrect
from what you've seen?

--bb