1.0 ??

[Kyle Furlong]

Georg Wrede wrote:
> 1.0?
> 
> Does that imply a simultaneous 1.0 for D and DMD??
> 
> Suppose they were decoupled. Then we might decide on D 1.0 (say in 
> December) and from there go on with fixing library issues, *installing* 
> issues (especially on Linux), and even try to create a package that 
> strives to be as good as Shrink-Wrap, i.e. simply work out of the box, 
> and be somewhat usable regarding GUI development. Say, in March.
> 
> In the meantime we could polish DMD, interact with the GDC guys to get 
> the two exactly alike, and then maybe even write some example code with 
> more user value than the current printf-Hello-World style examples.
> 
> ---
> 
> I recently talked with a CIO (who was somewhat familiar with D), who 
> said that "short of taking a snapshot of D and sticking with it, there's 
> no way we're gonna start using a moving target as our base, no matter if 
> it's ten times as good as the next language." And he didn't seem likely 
> to go the snapshot way.
> 
> The implication being that 1.0 or not, what a company needs is 
> stability. Stability in code, tools, programmer knowledge (as in hiring 
> and firing folks), a developer community specifically knowledgeable with 
> the problems of the _current_ version, a community developing and 
> maintaining up to date libraries targeted _precisely_ at the current 
> release, and of course a conviction that the current state of affairs 
> will continue for a reasonable amount of time (i.e. a belief in 
> everything not becoming obsolete in three months, be it due to a super 
> cool new version or simply code-breaking upgrades).
> 
> So,,, we need to create an _illusion_ of stability. This might be by 
> publishing 1.0, and at the same time separating the newsgroups into two 
> distinct areas:
> 
>  - faq
>  - learn
>  - issues
>  - general
>  - howto
> 
> and otoh:
> 
>  - future.general
>  - future.issues
>  - future.brainstorm
>  - future.roadmap
>  - future.implementation   ( = down-to-earth view on new things)
> 
> Or some such, anyway.
> 
> We might also promise to not publish a new (stable) version within 12 
> months of 1.0. (This may really be a more important promise for the 
> customers and prospective developers and consultants than we here 
> realize just off-hand.)

Yarr, me hearties, we should be releasin' soon. Arrr. Get 'em bugs 
squarshed.