Stable D version?

[Tourist]

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 01:06:49 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Monday, 22 April 2013 at 23:35:56 UTC, Flamaros wrote:
>
> The problem is not that D is usable or not as it is. The 
> problem is that, until officially "handled to the user", it 
> won't be taken too serious by the industry.
>
> In other words, you won't find jobs as a D programmer.
>
> C++ will improve more with the pending modules and other 
> features that do not even have to wait 2014 for that (a TR will 
> do the job). But the point here is not about C++.
>
> The problem with D is that it's never finished. Everybody waits 
> for the next version. Everytime I spoke to my boss about D, the 
> answer was like: "hmmm... we'll discuss about it when it's 
> ready".
>
> D1 was killed by a under-developed phobos and by the the 
> conflict tango-phobos, at least in part. What really killed D1 
> was the announcement of D2. And I have the feeling that after 
> D2 is rolled out, people will start working on D3.
>
> That's the wrong approach. If it is usable as it is, then shift 
> the main effort on tools for it and on promoting it. Then, let 
> it in the market, get feedback from compiler implementors and 
> commercial users and formalize that as a proposal for the next 
> D standard. Then, after public scrutinize the proposed changes 
> for 6 months or 1 tear, implement them.
>
> Only recently the focus was placed on implementing those shared 
> libraries. Really, who'd have been expected to use D in 
> commercial, large applications, without that support? Why did 
> people wait for so long?
>
> Keep running circles around Optlink and other specific tools 
> just for the sake of them? I agree they *were* valuable, but 
> they *were*. Focus on the ldc or gcc/gdc implementation, for 
> example. Use that as the official compiler. Do not split 
> effort. There are a lot of standard tools that will facilitate 
> adoption, yet the effort is misplaced.
>
> Put the current language version on the market, along with a 
> document summarizing proposals for the future standard and get 
> feedback from users that will start using it for real 
> applications, on large scale.
>
> No need, for now, to make Phobos the best of the best. The 
> curse of Tango vanished. Ship it as it is, incomplete but 
> cleaned, then some libraries will be written and they will find 
> almost naturally place in the standard library, just as the C++ 
> standard integrates parts from Boost, integrated STL etc.
>
> Pursuing perfection will miss the good.

I couldn't have said it better!