Is D still alive?

[retard]

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:53:34 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> On Monday, January 31, 2011 11:31:29 Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> Trass3r Wrote:
>> > > I've chosen to only work with D1/Tango from start, and I simply
>> > > don't recognize the frustration many are feeling. I'm only
>> > > concerned over that there ARE quite a few developers that seems to
>> > > have been turned off by instability, and the Phobos/Tango-problem.
>> > 
>> > Well, if nobody acted as a guinea pig, no issues would be uncovered
>> > ;) And though I already encountered several blocker bugs myself I got
>> > the feeling that the situation has become way better. Of course if,
>> > for some reason, you absolutely need x64 or have a hard deadline for
>> > your project then D1 is probably the better way to go.
>> 
>> Andrei put for the question once of, "How many issues would users run
>> across if they stuck to those features that are also available in
>> v1.0?"
>> 
>> I think the answer would be more then sticking with a D1 compiler, but
>> not nearly the number people do hit, which is also diminishing rapidly.
>> 
>> I do not think there is an issue with using D2 in a new project, but if
>> you have to ask you probably should go with D1. I say this because
>> someone who is aware of the issues present in the language is able to
>> decide if their desired project would be hindered by the bug. There are
>> definitely some projects, with constraints which would not make D a
>> very good choice.
>> 
>> For example D would make a great language on an embedded device, but
>> currently the first one to take it on will have a massive overhead to
>> make it work.
> 
> Personally, I find that it's issues such as not being able to link C or
> C++ code compiled by Microsoft's compiler with code compiled by dmd
> which would stop be me from being able to use D in projects at work. The
> stability of the compiler is an issue, but the linker issue totally
> kills it before the stability issue would even come up. Pretty much
> everything I work on at work has to run on both Linux and Windows (and
> soon Mac OS X), and we use Microsoft's compiler here, so D could would
> _have_ to be able to link with code compiled by Microsoft's compiler.
> The issue of D1 or D2 is completely irrelevant.

I don't do Windows development, but not being able to use popular third 
party development tools because of object file format issues sounds like 
a huge problem. I did a quick look at the digitalmars site. The 
limitation is only mentioned once in the FAQ section. A competent 
programmer might also discover that by reading the optlink page.

Also no mention of the quality of D2 toolchain. "1.030 stable", "1.066 
latest", and mysterious "2.051". I would assume it's stable. But like 
Ulrik said "the kind of bug-reports I hear frustration around, it seems 
D2 should still be considered beta"