Another Transitive const solution

[Hans W. Uhlig]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Alex Burton" <alexibu at mac.com> wrote in message 
> news:ftjfrg$24lu$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
>>
>>> "Alex Burton" <alexibu at mac.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fti5dd$8h7$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>> I wonder how many lurkers like me are waiting for D 2.0s const system to 
>>>> be
>>>> sorted out so that we can start using it.
>>>> Experience shows that const is viral and you are either using it or not
>>>> using it, and if libraries are using it, then you have to use it or you
>>>> can't use the libraries.
>>>> So I am not going to write a bunch of D 1.0 code until D 2.0's 
>>>> transitive
>>>> const is fixed.
>>> What?  What does constness in D2 have anything to do with D1?
>>>
>> Knowing that fundamental changes to the language will come in the next 
>> version makes me hesitant to start writing lots of code in D1.
>>
> 
> The entire reason for making D1 _D1_ was so that people _would_ start using 
> it.  It strikes me as very odd that the exact opposite seems to have 
> happened.  You're not the only one to come to this decision.
> 
> Personally I won't even consider D2 until it's frozen.  Furthermore just 
> because you write code in D1 doesn't mean you'll _have_ to start using D2. 
> 
> 

I think this idea comes out of the same mindset as Java. You don't want 
to use something you know is going to be deprecated so soon down the 
road. Since D2.0 is an evolution of the product rather then a new 
language it is seen as the next version, why write something that wont 
work with the next version when you can write it for that version. I 
think its simply the fact that D2 isn't backwards compatible for a good 
chunk of things. Porting might end up being a bigger pain then simply 
waiting is.

I look forward to a lot of the changes in parallel processing and 
library support coming for D2 and am waiting to start a few projects 
until D2.0s feature set is frozen, till then I merely putter.