State of Play

Tomas Lindquist Olsen tomas.l.olsen at gmail.com
Thu Mar 26 06:28:05 PDT 2009


On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Keep
<daniel.keep.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ValeriM wrote:
>> Ary Borenszweig Wrote:
>>
>>> Mike James escribi�:
>>>> What is the state of play with D1.0 vs. D2.0?
>>>>
>>>> Is D1.0 a dead-end and D2.0 should be used for future projects?
>>>>
>>>> Is D2.0 stable enough for use at the present?
>>>>
>>>> Is Tango for D2.0 at a level of D1.0 and can be used now?
>>>>
>>>> Is DWT ready for D2.0 now?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards, mike.
>>> I don't know why a lot of people see D1.0 as a dead-end. It's a stable
>>> language. It won't get new features. It won't change. It'll probably
>>> receive bug fixes. It works. It gets the job done. You can use it and be
>>> sure than in a time all of what you did will still be compatible with
>>> "newer" versions of D1.
>>
>> No. It's not stable.
>> Try to build last Tango and DWT releases with D1.041 and you will get the problems.
>
> "It's a stable language."
>
> Note the use of the word "language."
>
> What you're referring to are bugs in the compiler.  It happens.
>
>  -- Daniel
>

D1 does have some missing features that are in D2, and could be
backported to D1 without breaking any code.
This isn't going to happen for the sake of stability. But if I want to
use some of the new features, I have to get all the cruft that made me
look into D in the first place as well. A major reason I started with
D was because of simple syntax, GC and lack of the const hell.

D2 is no longer a simple language, you have to know all kinds of shit
to be able to use it correctly.

All my projects at the moment are in C++. And TBH I don't see that
changing any time soon. The stuff I did in D no longer works, and I
don't have time to debug the entire thing to figure out how/where the
compiler changed.

And yes, the Phobos vs. Tango (which in turn keeps breaking) situation
of course isn't making things better.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list