D-Day for DMD is today!

[Temtaime via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 03:31:12 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 09:44:17 Steven Schveighoffer 
> via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On 9/1/15 6:48 AM, "Luís Marques  <luis at luismarques.eu> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 05:17:33 UTC, Walter Bright 
>> > wrote:
>> >> We have made the switch from C++ DMD to D DMD!
>> >
>> > Is there a rough prediction of when the use of phobos in 
>> > ddmd will start to be accepted?
>>
>> I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since 
>> phobos is very unstable. We have to be cautious about making 
>> dmd breakable easily by a change to phobos.
>>
>> Of course, I think there is a baseline dmd/gdc/ldc that must 
>> be used to build dmd, so perhaps as long as you use phobos 
>> features that work there, it will be OK.
>
> Plenty of Phobos is stable and hasn't changed in quite a while. 
> We do sometimes deprecate stuff still, but there isn't much 
> that gets deprecated at this point, and the deprecation cycle 
> is about two years. The common problem would be regressions, 
> and the compiler gets those as much or more often than Phobos 
> does. But it is true that some stuff in Phobos changes 
> occasionally, and that could affect how new a compiler you need 
> to compile the current dmd.
>
> Regardless of that though, I know that at least some of the dmd 
> developers are against using Phobos simply because they don't 
> want the dependency. It simplifies things if Phobos isn't in 
> the mix. If you have to track down and fix a regression in the 
> compiler, that's easier to do if you don't have to worry about 
> the standard library being in the mix. The less that the 
> compiler depends on, the less that the compiler devs have to 
> worry about affecting the compiler. And if we need anything to 
> be sure of anything working right, it's the compiler. Sure, 
> there are some things in the standard library that might be 
> nice to use in the compiler, but that doesn't mean that it's 
> necessarily worth pulling in Phobos as a dependency, and if 
> it's something that's really useful, maybe it's worth 
> duplicating in the compiler code - or even making a version of 
> it that's tailored to the compiler's needs.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

LOL.
Using « pure » D in DDMD is ugly. Then why even compiler was 
converted ?
Using phobos in ddmd is helpful - it will help to detect 
regressions in phobos.
There's an autotester so i don't think it can break the things.