ISO D

[TencoDK via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:43:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 08:02 +0000, eugene via Digitalmars-d 
> wrote:
>> Hello, everyone,
>> will ISO D be in future or not?
>
> I am not sure this would be a good thing. Given the history of 
> Fortran, C, and C++, avoiding ISO standardization processes 
>  would seem to be a good thing for any other programming 
> language. Even the Java process is fairly dreadful.
>
> Having a sensible version release programme is more important 
> that a standard, though having a formal language specification 
> in machine readable format is a good idea.


>avoiding ISO standardization processes  would seem to be a good 
>thing for any other programming language

I disagree. ISO, or not ISO, D should be standardized/stabilized.

I dropped D once about a year ago because the new DMD version has 
broken backward compatibility. Some libraries have stopped 
compiling, and it caused a huge mess in dub package manager.
I was trying to build Dash engine with dub, spent some days with 
this package hell, and ended up with removing dub from my PC.

As for C++98, it didn't change since 1998, and I'm pretty sure I 
can compile anything written in C++98 even today.
I can't say I love C++, but I like its versioning. C++98, C++11, 
C++14 seems to be different languages, and nobody's trying to 
compile C++11 code with C++98 compiler.

Regards,
Alexey