DIP66 has been approved contingent to a few amendments as noted

[newbe via Digitalmars-d]

+1

You are stating the situation absolutely correct! Exactly the
same is happening now what happened with the decision to get a
release version D1 and start with D2.
it has been an experiment ever since with D2 and I quit the rat
race - keeping up with bad docs, features I don't need etc..



On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 16:10:57 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 14:27:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 14:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:54:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:16:32 UTC, eles wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 12:59:33 UTC, Dicebot 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 15:49:46 UTC, Andrei 
>>>>>> Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> It sounds like you have overly positive memories of D1. 
>> Working with it daily and especially dealing with all the 
>> compiler bugs we had back then (and still have with dmd1) - it 
>> is hardly an experience I'd want newcomer to have. Lacking 
>> quality of the toolchain kills any benefit from the language 
>> simplicity.
>
> Ypu are comparing the D2 toolchain from today with the D1 
> toolchain from back then (as the work on the latter stalled 
> when the language was retired, and the bulk of the work on D2 
> toolchain - and language - was done in the last 1.5-2 years).
>
> Back then I doubt that D2 toolchain was in better shape than 
> D1. Yes, the latter was doomed by the Phobos vs Tango issue, 
> but that wasn't the fault of the language.
>
> But I do not discuss about toolchains, but about the language 
> versions (D1 and D2) themselves. Please, for the remaininig of 
> the discussion, let's not mix the language and the toolchain.
>
> Point is, after so many years, D in its current incarnation 
> (D2) is in the same recurring stage (and I speak about the 
> language): on one hand, need to tie up some knots and ensure 
> consistency and stability of the language. On the other hands, 
> the need to modify the curren design and implement nicer 
> features. I feel that the two conflict too much already.
>
> OTOH, D2's design is far from reaching the ideal, and many 
> ideas needs pushing the frontier even further.
>
> The approach that I had in mind was to let D1 there for peple 
> who need to compile code and let D2 also there for people who 
> need to innovate their code. Then, once a feature is tested and 
> re-tested and the design of it is concidered to be optimal, it 
> is migrated from D2 to D1. It doesn't need to be immediately, 
> but over a span that could e even 6 months. People will have 
> time to adapt their skills and their code to integrate (or take 
> advantage) of the new feature.
>
> Then, the new frontlines would become D1.1 and D2.1.