backporting features to D1

[Christopher Wright]

bobef wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> I think there was some hope that making a really stable D1.0 would
>>> somehow make D1.0 an attractive choice for companies.  But come on.
>>> It was a stretch when D1 was just a niche language.  Now it's a niche
>>> language that's also obsolete.
>> People made it clear they were not going to use a language for
>> production if it got new features every month. D 1.0 is a complete and
>> very usable language, with the goal of being stable and bug free.
>>
> 
> Are they going to use the language if it is practically dead? No new features added, D2 too experimental and practically another language. D2 goes so far away from D1 that the task to port a big project seems very unappealing. Plus it is a different language. I come from C++ and like D because it fixes the stupidness of C++ while remaining fast and not too high level. D2 becomes too high level for me... So what is the point to develop for D1? To be honest what I read recently about D2 drives me off. I love D1 and I'd love to have some of the D2 features, but not D2. Now I hope for something like LLVMDC that will keep D1 alive and maybe developing. I brought this up before, but unfortunately Walter didn't respond (http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=76149). I fully support Bill Baxter's post.

The issue isn't the lack of new features, so much as bugs being labeled 
enhancements and not being fixed in D1.

If you want the new features, you can switch to D2, so I don't see that 
as a problem. (I want the new features, but I'm waiting for Tango support.)