Is it time for D1 to die of natural causes?

[Mike James]

"dsimcha" <dsimcha at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:hvthsj$253t$1 at digitalmars.com...
> == Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a at a.a)'s article
>> "Justin Johansson" <no at spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:hvt27i$hd4$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> > Now that Andrei's much anticipated publication of TDPL is out, is it 
>> > time
>> > that D1 should now perish?
>> >
>> > My personal feeling is that by cremating D1, time and effort can then 
>> > be
>> > better expended and focused on solidifying D2.
>> >
>> Other people brought up other issues with doing that, but I'll add this: 
>> D1
>> users are primarily Tango users. And until Tango goes D2, those user's
>> migration paths to D2 would be fairly large (certainly not impossible, 
>> but
>> notably harder than it would really need to be).
>
> Sometimes I feel like D1/Tango and D2/Phobos really should evolve as 
> completely
> separate languages.  D1/Tango feels very much like Java++, while D2/Phobos 
> feels a
> lot more like (C++)++.  If there's enough manpower for it, it'd be very
> interesting to see how this would play out.

That could be useful to have D1 associated with Tango and D2 associated with 
Phobos. It would stop the arguements that there are 2 competing "standard" 
libraries for D.

-=mike=-