The D Programming Language by Andrei Alexandrescu

[David Wilson]

On 12/8/07, Craig Black <craigblack2 at cox.net> wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> news:fjc8ls$7lq$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > Craig Black wrote:
> >> Besides, given the scope of D 2.0, I can't quite fathom what features you
> >> would include in a D 3.0.
> >
> > It's far too early to make plans, but I expect 3.0 would be a push to
> > support functional programming and other things for multicore programming.
>
> I was under the impression that transactional memory would be included in
> 2.0.

It seems to me, D being a pragmatic language targeting realistic
environments, STM wouldn't be a win with the number of cores most
machines have these days (right?).

Plus, that area still seems to be seeing rapid evolution. It'd be
pretty terrible if we ended up with some syntax in 2.0 for an
experimental feature that could end up being the "const debate" of
3.0, simply by jumping the gun before the technology has stabilized
enough to be generally useful.

>
>
>