Criteria for 1.0 (was: Re: If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?)

[kris]

Tony wrote:
> "Walter Bright"  wrote 
>>So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not
>>like D will stop undergoing improvements.
> 
> 
> I've taken the liberty of making this a new thread as the old one was 
> getting a little long.
> 
> Walters post raises the issue of exactly what criteria should be used to 
> determine when D reaches a state suitable for a 1.0 release.
> 
> My personal take is that it should be a 1.0 release when Walter believes 
> that all of the language changes which are expected to break existing code 
> have been made.  For example, if he expects to add any further reserved 
> words, reserve them (even if not presently implemented) prior to the 1.0 
> release.  Also, any change which alters the semantics of an existing feature 
> and thus breaks existing code should be made prior to 1.0.
> 
> This still leaves bug fixing and additional language features which don't 
> break existing code for post-1.0 releases.



Hear Hear!

One thing to add, though, is a certain /level of expectation/ should be 
accomodated without significant issue. We don't want to announce a grand 
opening, so to speak, and have loads of new folks rush through the doors 
and simply fall through holes in the floor. Would be a public-relations 
disaster.

Given that aspect, I suspect there's still certain outstanding "major 
issues" that really ought to be addressed first? There's no point in 
jumping the gun if you're going to take a dive at the first hurdle.

Would there a problem with setting a schedule for release, rather than 
just being a tad reactive? I mean, what's another month or two to those 
who really want the language to succeed?