DMD 1.030 and 2.014 releases

[Bill Baxter]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> Any chance we'll be getting a backport of the fix to bug 493 in DMD
>>> 1.031?   [ http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=493 ]
>> I understand your point, and I have mixed feelings about it. The trouble
>> is, it isn't a stable target if it gets language changes, and everyone
>> has a different idea on what should be moved from 2.0 to 1.0.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand.  Could you please explain why this issue is
> a language change and not a bug?  The ticket was certainly submitted
> well prior to D 2.0's release.

I think we just need to have a D1.1 release.  That would make everyone 
happy.  Like Miles just said, basically.

The majority of available code right now is D1 only.  So if you don't 
want to reinvent lots of wheels, your best bet is D1.  As most everyone 
knows, Tango is D1 only.  Probably the majority of long-timers here are 
still D1 only simply because if you have lots of code that works, moving 
all of it to an unstable D2 is not a very compelling proposition.

Let me put it this way.  I don't have the time or really the interest at 
this point to get my libs (OpenMeshD, Multiarray, Luigi) or the libs I 
depend on (DWT and Tango via that) updated to D2.  And beyond my dsource 
libs I have probably about an equal amount of application code written 
in D1.  I think probably a number of folks in the Tango team are in the 
same boat, and probably various others who got started with D1 and have 
been enjoying using it.

So does it make sense to leave this demographic of heavy D users behind 
with an aging feature set?

Ugh, I don't think I'm saying this well at all, but I can't spend any 
more time on this email, because I have to get back to my actual 
full-time job (writing D1 code, ATM).  Basically to sum it up, it seems 
to me like current development priorities neglect some of the most loyal 
D users, those who have been using it and writing large-ish libraries 
since D0 days.  A backward-compatible features-only D1.1 release would 
serve that, IMHO, important demographic.

--bb