Is it time for D1 to die of natural causes?

[Eric Poggel]

On 6/23/2010 1:56 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> == 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.

I think this type of fragmentation could only hurt things--and has 
already, except that phobos has become more open.

With fragmentation you have less effort for each.  One complete product 
is far better than two half-implemented ones.