why a part of D community do not want go to D2 ?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-11-09 17:43, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 11/9/10 1:42 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2010-11-08 20:55, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> It is my perception (though I might be wrong) that the dichotomy has
>>> become to some extent political. D2 offers little political incentive to
>>> a Tango port. Tango is currently the de facto standard library for D1 as
>>> the vast majority of D1 users use D1 and Tango in conjunction, which
>>> precludes use of the underpowered Phobos1 (D1's de jure standard
>>> library). Due to Sean's work on making druntime independently available,
>>> porting to D2 would lower Tango's status from the standard library to
>>> one of the libraries that may be used in conjunction with Phobos2.
>>
>> Here's the problem with that: since Sean basically forked the Tango
>> runtime, removed any non DMD specific code and any code for a platform
>> that DMD doesn't support. And stopped contributing to Tango while others
>> improved the Tango runtime we're back at square one with two
>> incompatiable runtimes and the Tango runtime still seems to be better.
>
> It's not difficult to offer e.g. an incompatible C runtime that is
> slightly better than the standard one. People generally don't do that
> but instead add libraries on top of that because they understand the
> advantages of compatibility.

There was a good "standard" library that you forked and never added back 
any changes to it.

> I wouldn't be surprised if Tango chose to turn away from compatibility
> for the second time (be it theoretical compatibility for now since there
> is no Tango for D2). The technical reasons are dwindling and became
> tenuous to argue for, but however weak they are, they could be used to
> promote a political motivation: a Tango/D2 offering would come again as
> an either-or proposition for a standard library that precludes usage of
> Tango2 and Phobos2 together. In my opinion that would be an extremely
> dangerous gambit.

Clearly we don't see this in the same way. I see it like this, because 
Tango was first it's druntime that chose to turn away from compatibility.

>> For this to work the Tango team and the druntime
>> contributors/maintainers have collaborate and work together on a runtime.
>
> That runtime is druntime. If there is no understanding of that at Tango,
> that is suicide.

Apparently not, since Sean ripped out all that wasn't necessary for 
Phobos but is necessary for Tango. Why are you blaming everything on 
Tango all the time?

> [snip]
>>> The insufficient implementation of new features propagates the
>>> perception that D2 is unstable, although the more conventional, D1-like
>>> subset of D2 is as solid in both languages. But then the perception is
>>> justified, because one would want to use D2 primarily for its new,
>>> unique offerings. A longer term perception problem is that some might
>>> think the _design_ of such features has unsolvable issues, which hurts
>>> the image of the language. I know of no major design flaws, but that is
>>> only an academic argument in wake of perennial implementation
>>> insufficiencies.
>>
>> There are still things in D1 that are not solid, just look at the bugs
>> and newsgroups posts by bearophile. The module/import system, for
>> example.
>
> Which ones? There are more than a few :o).
>
>
> Andrei
>

You just helped to prove my point :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg