State of Play

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Ary Borenszweig (ary at esperanto.org.ar)'s article
> Daniel Keep 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
> But ValieriM has a point. If I code, say, a library in D 1.041 only to
> find out that in a couple of months it won't compile anymore in D 1.045,
> that's not good at all. That's when someone sends a message to the
> newsgroups saying "I just downloaded library Foo, but it won't compile
> with D 1.045... is it abandoned? Why isn't it maintained? D1 is broken".
> The point is, you shouldn't need to maintain libraries for D1 anymore.
> Maybe the test suite for D1 should be bigger to cover more cases...

Yes, but there's a difference between being broken in some trivial way that
requires a few greps and a recompile and being broken in a way that requires
people to actually review and possibly redesign parts of the code to fix it.  I
really don't see how the former is a big deal.