D1.x series proposal [was: State of Play]

[Jason House]

Leandro Lucarella Wrote:

> Sean Kelly, el 26 de marzo a las 22:08 me escribiste:
> > == Quote from Leandro Lucarella (llucax at gmail.com)'s article
> > >
> > > D situation is a little different because D2 is already here, and it's too
> > > much ahead of D1. So a plan to backport features from D2 to D1
> > > progressively should be done.
> > 
> > Who is going to do these backports?
> 
> That's a fair question without an answer =)
> (I wish I had the time to do it. If I had the time I probably first do it
> and then propose it)
> 
> > Personally, I'd rather think about moving my code to D2 in one jump than
> > in a bunch of incremental steps, each requiring a custom compiler.
> 
> Are you? If not, why? I think D2 being a moving target make people don't
> want to port code because it would be too hard to maintain. They idea
> behind 1.x series is that each minor version is *stable*. Code you port
> to, let's say, 1.1.000, will work with 1.1.100. No new predefined
> versions, no new nothing. You get a really stable language and one that
> evolves fast. You just have to do some minor porting about once a year,
> when a new minor version is release, and that porting should be trivial.
> Porting code to D2 now is a complicated excercise, at least to do it right
> (using constness features).

I think many people avoid D2 because it has const and that const is too much work for too little gain. Many seem to want all features of D2 without the const. I don't really get any of the anti D2 arguments except that D2 lacks Tango. I pushed hard trying to see something official in that area, including offering my time totest/fix Tango after breaking D2 changes. I've given up on the whole mess.