1.0 ??

[Don Clugston]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> It's great that there's an open source D compiler, and I applaud the 
>>> effort of those folks who have gotten it to where it is.  But it 
>>> really should be the MAIN compiler not a sad also-ran huffing and 
>>> puffing to keep up.
>>
>> There's nothing impeding anyone from submitting the patches to it to 
>> keep it up to date. I try pretty hard to make all the updates to the D 
>> language in the front end, to make getting it to GDC easier. For the 
>> rest, I am available for advice and help in any way I can (although I 
>> cannot work on the gnu backend code itself, as I wish to avoid 'taint').
> 
> Hmm.  So why isn't the strategy working?
> Current GDC is based on 0.162 from June 22.  Over ten releases, 4 
> months,  dozens of bug fixes, and at least ten significant features 
> behind DMD.
> 
> In your estimation, for someone who knows what they are doing, how long 
> should it take to update GDC for 'an average DMD release'?  Is the 
> problem just that we've been lacking anyone who meets the qualifications 
> since July?  Did I miss the good old days when GDC and DMD used to walk 
> hand in hand and frolic in the Autumn mist?
> 
> --bb

D is hardly limited by the compiler. On his own, Walter's equivalent to 
a medium-size team. No other language gets variadic templates, signals 
and slots, and  other significant template improvements only two weeks 
after the previous release.  Sure, GDC lags behind DMD, but really, even 
GDC releases are more common than compiler releases for most other 
languages.

It's the libraries that need attention.