Linux Agora D thread

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:09:31 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> In any case, that poster seems knowledgeable enough that I don't see  
>> much point in arguing with him. His opinion obviously differs from that  
>> of most of us on this list, but it's generally based quite soundly on  
>> facts, so only time will prove him wrong.
>
> Sure, but it all depends on how one interprets those facts.
>
> For example, C++ is hardly the same language it was in 1988 or so, when  
> it became widely used. I don't think any pre-2000 C++ compiler would be  
> remotely considered usable today. Languages that are not dead go through  
> substantial revisions and upgrades. It is not a defect in D that it does  
> so, too.
>
> As anyone can see in the changelog, we've stopped adding features to D2  
> and are working on toolchain issues. There's been a lot of progress  
> there.

While I agree D2 will be a great platform to develop with, it's currently  
unusable for any major project IMO.

I think the #1 reason is this:  Yes D2 compiler has stopped adding  
features, but D2 standard library is comprised of half-baked components  
and rapidly changing ones (and getting new instances of these monthly).

Before we can compare apples to apples, we need to stabilize phobos.  But  
I don't think we should rush this, let's make phobos the best it can be  
first, and then freeze it.

I'll say that I developed a medium sized project with Tango, and I think  
at this point, if I wanted to upgrade, I would have to spend significant  
time porting it to the latest version.  That was only about a year and a  
half ago.  Tango may have stabilized in recent times (haven't looked at it  
in a while), but phobos 2 is nowhere near as usable as Tango was a year  
and a half ago.  Lets focus on getting it there and stop worrying about  
how some guy doesn't like D.

-Steve