is it possible to learn D(2)?

[Caligo]

If there is going to be a D3, will it be backwards compatible with D2?

And why is work still being done on the D1 compiler?  Shouldn't it be marked
deprecated so people stop using it and move to D2?

Also, do you know if there are any plans to standardize the language?  Is
the specification complete?


On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>wrote:

> On Saturday 18 December 2010 01:14:19 Gour wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Seeing all the threads here about improving D(2) syntax for different
> > features of the language, I just wonder if it's possible to learn D(2)
> > language which is so much in flux by using TDPL as reference?
> >
> > Now I may have some time to learn D(2), but wonder when will the
> > language become more stable or the proposals/improvements discussed
> > here (I skip over majority of such threads) are not major changes?
>
> TDPL is mostly correct. There are a few features that it discusses that
> either
> quite buggy or outright unimplemented (e.g. neither inout and alias this is
> completely implemented and some of what is implemented is rather buggy).
> There
> are also some features which may change. However, at this point, stuff is
> only
> going to change with a really good reason, and most of such changes are
> likely
> to be additive and wouldn't break much - if anything. For instance, weak
> purity
> is essentially an additive change. It makes it so that more functions can
> be
> marked as pure, but it doesn't make more functions optimizable due to
> purity,
> and it doesn't break any code.
>
> Prior to the release of TDPL, there were at times major changes between
> releases
> of dmd which broke a lot of code. That doesn't really happen anymore.
>
> For the most part, if you follow TDPL, you will be fine. Some stuff in TDPL
> won't
> work yet in practice, and it is possible that a few changes will be made to
> the
> language at some point which break current code and/or contradict TDPL. But
> no
> such changes have yet been made, I don't believe, and there are none which
> have
> been decided upon. None will be made without a definite, compelling reason,
> precisely because TDPL is supposed to be valid. D2 is not entirely stable,
> but
> it the spec is no longer in constant flux either.
>
> Some changes likely will happen, but only as necessary, and they're going
> to be
> rare. And as time passes, they will become even rarer.
>
> Some folks will continue to discuss possible features for D which will
> never
> make it into D2. If there is ever a D3, they may be included then, but
> stuff like
> non-nullable references is not going to make it into the language in D2
> (though
> there may be a library solution for it).
>
> Now, Phobos is certainly in flux. Parts of it are quite stable and won't be
> changing particularly, but there's plenty of it which will continue to
> evolve,
> and there will certainly be more stuff being added. Phobos is still very
> much a
> work in progress.
>
> Really, the biggest obstacle to D development at this point is likely
> simply
> bugs - be they in the compiler or in Phobos. The situation continues to
> improve,
> but there are bugs which pop up from time to time which can cause major
> headaches (like inout being totally broken at the moment). The language
> spec is
> essentially stable, but not necessarily set in stone. In almost all cases,
> you
> can rely on TDPL being correct. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that.
> Compiler bugs are far more likely to trip you up than any language changes.
> If
> and when they happen, they'll probably remove certain types of problems
> rather
> than causing much in the way of new ones anyway.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20101218/cefe7a4f/attachment.html>