D-

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/15/12 4:40 PM, Don wrote:
> On 13.02.2012 19:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Second, coming up with another D-derived brand is a bad marketing move.
>> We've been hurt for too long a time by D1/D2.
>
> Andrei, can I ask you to please never mention D1 again? You seem to have
> _fundamental_ misconceptions about it. It's obvious that D1 was
> exceedingly poorly explained, to the extent that even you didn't
> understand it, and you've spread your misunderstandings everywhere.
> And THAT has been a marketing disaster.
>
> To try to set the record straight:
>
> The D language has been developed continuously since the beginning.
> "D1" is a stability snapshot of DMD 1.015.
> "D2" is the continued development of D after 1.015.
>
> There was no change in the rate of language development before the
> stability snapshot (ie, what went into D1) vs after the stability
> snapshot (what has gone into D2). There was no decision "1.015 is a good
> enough language, let's stabilize on this". It was essentially a freezing
> of the language development at a largely arbitrary point, for purposes
> of stability. Most importantly, note that "D1" was not planned. It's not
> a language that anyone wanted. It's just a snapshot.
> And it was successful - 75% of the open bugs are D2-only.
>
> Any mention of D1 as if it were the "first attempt" of the D language is
> offensive, and wrong.
>
> Here's the original announcement of D1:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/Stick_a_fork_in_it_8521.html

All of this is in agreement with my understanding of the situation, so I 
fail to see where my fundamental misconceptions would be. Is it possible 
that your perception of my view of D1 is inaccurate? As a simple 
starting point, note that none of the above contradicts, either directly 
or indirectly, my assertion.


Thanks,

Andrei