D as first class language in the gcc milestones ?

[Ledd via D.gnu]

On Saturday, 27 September 2014 at 12:20:01 UTC, Iain Buclaw via 
D.gnu wrote:
> On 27 September 2014 13:11, ketmar via D.gnu 
> <d.gnu at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:47:33 +0000
>> "Ledd via D.gnu" <d.gnu at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think that the gcc team is slow on releasing new 
>>> releases
>>> and patches
>> they are much slower than D team.
>>
>>> I think that on one hand it's true that D is
>>> currently a rapidly-changing language, but this also prevents 
>>> a
>>> gain in popularity, no one wants to adopt a non-standard 
>>> language
>>> that is constantly mutating for production code.
>> at least three companies already adopted D: Facebook, 
>> Sociomantic
>> and... sorry, i forgot the third. so your "no one" is a slight
>> exaggeration. ;-)
>>
>>> My assumption is that D needs to freeze at some point .
>> ahem... we already have C++. ;-) it's not frozen, but it's 
>> legacy turned
>> it to abomination.
>>
>> i believe that shipping old D in distributives will harm D 
>> more than
>> not shipping at all. people will write new code using obsolete
>> features, fight with already-fixed bugs, and so on. being 
>> independent of
>> GCC allow to avoid such problems, 'cause maintainer can build 
>> new
>> package when new GDC is out. but if GDC will be the part of 
>> GCC, no
>> updates will ship until new GCC is out, 'cause GDC release 
>> cycle will be
>> dependent of GCC release cycle.
>>
>
> And for sure, the team pushing for DDMD will have to be a 
> little more
> backwards compatible than previous release can build next 
> release.

I can't see the problem, do you think that a rolling-release 
language is good for its own popularity and diffusion ?

The only credible alternative is that you make D extremely easy 
to refactor via automated tools so you can change it as much as 
you want while keeping the codebase working .