Brad Roberts wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There have been quite a few bugs in the I/O functions because the
infrastructure underneath them has gone through a few major revisions.
As Don said, D2 is an alpha and it cannot be held to the stability
standards of a finished product.
Then I should wait a few revisions before doing anything that depends in
any significant way on Phobos?
I think there's no point in releasing a product that is known to be
unstable. But I guess it's intended as a preview / request for testing.
What versions of D2 and Phobos are recommended to use for something
vaguely stable and usable?
None. Use D1 if you want stability.
I'm using D1, but it's a bug rollercoaster. I'm claiming what D needs is
not new spiffy features, that solve all currently known problems of the
computer science world, but a rock stable toolchain.
Have you made sure bugs are filed for the issues you've found or run into? Have
you voted for those you feel are the most important?
D1 receives a steady stream of bug fixes every few weeks based on some
combination of user feedback and Walter's whims.
This goes into the right direction. Some time ago, we didn't even have a
stable language specification. Now, the language and the compiler are
supposed to be stable, but actually they still need a lot of work. The
language specification is full of glaring holes, especially in tricky
areas like .stringof or CTFE. The compiler has some bugs/deficiencies
that probably never will be fixed. For example, the enum forward
referencing bug is known since 2 years.
Sometimes I wonder how much better dmd and D (D1) would be, if the D
Gods would concentrate all their energy on fixing bugs or closing the
language spec by figuring out what some language constructs actually are
supposed to do? Sure, they'd find this boring, but I'd just like to use
D for real stuff.
Later,
Brad
