On 5/9/2009 11:24 AM, grauzone wrote:
beyond and I'm quite sure that I'm not the only one. For all the
Naysayers out there... Keep saying nay and go the hell away. D2 is
just where it is supposed to be. Let’s not end up in the same mess we
did by trying to make impatient people happy and releasing D1.
What about the people who want to use D for something actually useful?
Well, for those cases, there is D1. Which, if I may add, is extremely
stable. Take a network administrator running his server or firewall on
say DragonFly or any of the many flavors of BSD or Linux; he does not
upgrade his server with nightly builds, he sticks instead with a
"stable," well tested branch of the OS and experiments with "current."
When current becomes stable, the OS developer does not stop developing
his OS, he continues on with his vision while the "users" further
stress-tests the newly stabilized branch and take steps to find and
correct any holes in the system. And our system administrator, well, he
doesn't switch until he is comfortable that the newly stabilized branch
meets all his criteria for upgrade. If they are not met... he waits
until the OS branches again.
We cannot expect the compiler developer to stop developing compilers
until after the tools developers decide to build tools. He has done his
job, which is to develop a stable, documented compiler. Use it to
develop your tools which will in turn allow the compiler/language to
gain popularity. Report any bug reports on anything that seems out of
the ordinary so that it can either be clarified in documentation or
corrected with code.
Walter is a damn good Engineer but I don't think his interests lie in
writing tools (IDE and the like). So those people that do write those
tools may want to take the "stable" compiler and start developing. So
what if this feature "that is in D2" is not in D1? Use what you have in
D1 and develop your tools and simply stay abreast with the development
of D2 so that when it is time to switch, you are not in the dark.
Andrew
