Criteria for 1.0 (was: Re: If D becomes a failure, what's the

[jcc7]

In article <e90ai8$26ve$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
>
>Tony wrote:
><snip>
>> 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.
><snip>
>
>Yes, that's part of it.  AISI the prerequisites for 1.0 readiness are:
>(a) a clear, complete and consistent spec

That'd be nice. I don't know if the current gaps in the spec are big enough to
prevent D 1.0 though.


>(b) a fully documented and reasonably clean standard library

I don't think we should wait that long. Phobos isn't perfect, but I think it's
good enough for D 1.0.


>(c) all known serious compiler bugs and most not-so-serious compiler 
>bugs fixed

I think there could be quite a few not-so-serious compiler bugs in D 1.0
release. But they have to be hard to find for D newcomers.


>(d) as you say, sufficient stability that any language or standard 
>library changes are unlikely to break existing code

Or at least, the code wouldn't break until around D 2.0.


>(e) agreement among all of us that the above have been achieved

I hope by "all of us" you mean "most of us" or "many of us" because "all of us"
won't ever happen.

jcc7