All this talk about finalising D2 makes me worried

[Stewart Gordon]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:23:30 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 at yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> What's not finished in D1 that Walter isn't already working on 
>>> because it's broken in D2 too?
>>
>> Everything that Walter hasn't yet got round to working on.  I guess 
>> it's just a matter of what Walter's priorities are.
> 
> So you think there *are* parts of D1 that are broken or incomplete, yet 
> working properly in D2?  An example would be nice.

That doesn't factor into what I said at all.

<snip>
> I got it from when you said D1 should be finished before D2 is 
> finished.  My point is, yeah, that's a given considering all of D1's 
> bugs exist as bugs in D2.

You're confusing being actually finished with being declared finished.

First D1 must be actually finished.  Then D2 must be actually finished. 
  This we seem to agree on.  Then, and only then, can D2 sensibly be 
declared finished.  Simple.  But it seems people are wanting to meddle 
with this order, and this is what I've been getting at all along.

(OK, so my original post did talk of "All this talk about getting D2 
finished".  I probably just hadn't quite found the right words at that 
point.)

>> What I may have said, however, is something to the effect that the 
>> bits of D1 being worked on don't seem to be the major ones towards D1 
>> being finished, such as cleaning up the spec.  One thing I do know is 
>> that it's been ages since anything under issue 677 that I filed has 
>> been fixed.
> 
> Large successful D1 projects still seem to exist without a complete 
> spec.  I'm not so sure a complete D1 spec would miraculously spark a D 
> revolution.

Simple.  Once we have a complete D1 spec, major software companies will 
be ready to implement D.  When a major software company implements D, 
it'll become more widely known to the masses.  This'll also pave the way 
for D to taken up by the software industry on a significant scale.

<snip>
> All I'm saying is, you're not going to get an engineer to stop working 
> on the interesting fun project to go dot i's and cross t's on a mostly 
> functional prior project, except for probably bug-fixes.  Especially 
> when he does it for free :)

Can you think of an undotted i (for as long as we aren't doing this in 
Turkish) or an uncrossed t that doesn't qualify as a bug?

Stewart.