On Sun, 2018-03-04 at 21:12 +0000, Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:01:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > > So having D2.999 is fine per se, but advertises a lack of > > change and a lack of ambition since the language name is D not > > D2. > > D just doesn't follow semver. If it did, we would have D79 now, > nothing else even comes close to this. And I suspect it won't > adopt semver because major number would be so ridiculously high > and will advertize something else.
I do not see your reasoning here. Has the core D computational model changed? I think not. Does D issue bugfix releases? Occasionally. Thus: 2.79.0 seems like a perfectly reasonable semantic version number for D. > > Fortran, C++, and Java show an obsessive adherence to backward > > compatibility and yet they increase their major numbers to give > > the appearance at least of forward progress. > > C++ and Fortran don't have version numbers, those are brand > numbers. Actually no, they are standards version numbers. Once you have an ISO standard for a programming language semantic versioning is impossible, but the standard number is the version number. On the other hand this is trivia and so shouldn't become a Big Issue™. -- Russel. =========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
