Give me a break

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

Steve Teale wrote:
> dsimcha Wrote:
> 
>> I feel that miscellaneous toolchain issues (other than implementing changes to the
>> spec and fixing bugs that severely affect the usability of language features) are
>> an order of magnitude less important because this stuff can always be done after
>> the fact without breaking code.  In other words, once the spec is finalized and a
>> decent reference implementation is out the door, people can confidently use D2
>> knowing that the situation will only get better.  Until then, it's two steps
>> forward, one step back when code breaks in non-trivial ways due to a spec change
>> or a compiler bug makes a seemingly useful feature that you planned on using
>> absolutely useless.
> 
> Dsimcha,
> 
> Everything can be done later. The concern is 'will it'. If D dies on the way because people come to look __again__ and see same-old, same-old, then this is a real risk.
> 
> Steve


...except everything isn't same-old same-old! A lot of exciting things 
have happened in the last year:

   - The D2 spec is soon finished.

   - Phobos is being completely rewritten, and from what I've seen
     so far I think it is a beautiful piece of work.

   - The DMD compiler is available for more architectures than ever.

   - A D book is being written by a well-known author and C++ expert.

   - An alternative compiler is in active development. It is built on
     a modern compiler infrastructure, and it is developed by a team of
     people instead of just one person. This should secure its future
     somewhat. I suspect that once the D1 version is in place, the
     D2 version won't be far behind.

   - The DMD compiler is now open source. It is easier than ever to
     tweak and patch it, and to make a D compiler of your own.

I think these are exciting times in which to be a D user! :)

-Lars