standardization of D

[Dan]

Ameer Armaly Wrote:

> 1. 1.0 doesn't appear to be any special sort of marker with regard to the 
> standard; we have not only CTFE but mixins added post-1.0, along with 
> numerous changes to the _standard_library. I understand the compiler can be 
> made to strictly conform to the 1.0 spec, 

Exactly, so you can continue to develop for the 1.0 spec, and that code will work, to my understanding, as advertised.

>but the fact still remains it 
> seems very ad hoc. 

> Then, the whole D language, including standard library, ought to be frozen 
> for several years to let it proliferate throughout the technical community; 

I totally disagree with this statement.  We have a frozen implementation of D 1.0, and a frozen spec for the language of D 1.0.  That can proliferate as much as people like.  I feel that as long as future 1.x compilers support 1.0 code, people can write 1.0 code and it will work universally on people's compilers.

> an experimental compiler can of course undergo development, but clearly 
> marked as such and _separate_ from the stable compiler.
> 2. We have two competing standard libraries; this is nowhere near good. 

I feel that this is perfectly fine.  People can develop a program using either library and I can compile it on my system.  10 libraries would be retarded, and very bad.  2 really isn't.

> Phobos is basically built on C wherever possible and sort of thrown 
> together, and Tango reminds me of Java with a class for everything and then 
> some. For the standard's sake (and consequent adoption), D needs one 
> accepted standard library. 

I disagree, in fact being able to plug in a library according to your programming philosophy will probably allow us to develop superior programs.

> The current state makes that difficult because 
> Walter is forced to hand-manage both the compiler and library. What ought to 
> happen IMO is that Walter should delegate day to day library management to a 
> trusted associate who will occasionally inform Walter of the latest 
> developments; Walter makes the final call, and life goes on.

My understanding is that Walter develops and maintains D and D language spec; and that he wrote the original Phobos.  I think someone else is maintaining Phobos under that system, while yet someone else is maintaining Tango and releasing without constant verification from Walter - and with Walter's occasional contributions.

> So to conclude, these are issues that have been sort of addressed at various 
> times in other issues, but never to a point that accomplished the intended 
> goal. The D community is growing; there are going to be a lot of new people 
> that look at it now and say "Huh? Say again?" Maybe we ought to step back 
> and forget the years we've had to become comfortable with D and analyze it 
> from a potential user's point of view in order to make adoption easier.

D is constantly being nitpicked on this forum - and the fact that it hasn't been feature frozen has allowed it to continue to be nitpicked and evolve into a better language.  I feel that the current process Walter is employing is almost even more important than the language itself; as clearly C++ and C stagnated leading for a need to replace those languages.

Sincerely,
Dan