Stable D version?

[eles]

On Monday, 22 April 2013 at 14:25:21 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 April 2013 at 19:58:14 UTC, Tourist wrote:
>> What's holding you from releasing a version now and declaring 
>> it stable for e.g. a year?
>
> What would be the benefit of just declaring one release stable?
>
> This is not a trick question.

That would not be a benefit, maybe. But, however, an answer to 
the question: "will EVER D be finished?" would be more than 
wonderful.

Clean up the doubtful or wrong features and let it as it is. 
Further language improvements should be made after several years 
of use. Much like C++ is evolving with its standards, also C 
(C89, C99 etc.)

Seriously, now, D is in the making for a decade and more. And, 
until it gets stable and Walter STOPS working on D (language) 
and, instead, only works on the COMPILER, things are not done.

D starts looking like the D in _D_uke Nukem Forever (and forever 
it will take...).

I got old looking at D and hoping that it will ever get released.

Imagine that Bjarne Stroustrup would proceed today with changing 
C++ at the same pace as D is. C++ still evolves, albeit less fast 
than D, but also with much more scrutinity and, let's say, 
conservatorism. Which, after a while, it is good.

Will D remain the forever unborn child of the programming 
languages?

Born it. Let it become what is intended to be: a MATURE language. 
Yes, it might not grow perfect, but it will grow. It needs to get 
into childhood, enough with the (pro-)creation.

At my job I went back to C++. With a language contunously in the 
making, the tools will never mature enough, never will get 
Eclipse plugins as good as CDT, never etc.

I have that feeling (correct me if I am wrong) that C++ will 
catch up with D in several years. Look at C++11, it is a nice 
improvement. C++14 will be (hopefully) even better. And, then?...

Radons&Minayev made a good decision to quit D back then and never 
look behind. A toy it was, a toy remained.