What happens when #3 turns up an inconsistency in the language spec after #1 and #2 have occurred? It'd be a real shame to have to wait another 2-3 years for it to be corrected in a stable DMD!
If #4 hits issues, #1 may block resolution of those issues. #6 won't occur after #1 either. If history serves, a "stable D" translates to no Phobos enhancements. The world may require a D2 Tango that replaces Phobos once again. I honestly believe that we have to start the D2 integration now in order to ensure changes to #1 and #2 occur. If we wait and issues crop up, there are only two possible outcomes: Having permanently bad features A mismatch between Andrei's book and the D2 spec. Paul D. Anderson Wrote: > A. What I'm looking forward to in the near future: > > 1) D2 will be frozen. > 2) Andre's book will come out. > > B. What I'm hopeful for, and really expect to see fairly soon thereafter: > > 3) A complete, consistent D language specification (for D1 and D2). > 4) D2 support for many of the popular tools and libraries out there, > especially Tango and descent. > 5) Continued development of D compilers alongside DMD: LLDC, GDC, dil, etc. > 6) Expansion of Phobos with more contributions from others besides Walter and > Andre. > 7) Improvements in the D toolchain, as have been discussed here at some > length: > > Quoting Frank Rundell: > "If it wants to compete with the 'big boys' it needs an IDE, a GUI library > that can compile and work, a debugger that understands D, a proper linker, > packaged releases for linux, an installer for Windows, etc." > > C. What I'd like to see in the longer run: > > 8) A solid suite of D tools, written in D. > > D. The good news is that none of these except 1) and 2) depend on Walter or > Andre. All they need is a some committed effort from a group of intelligent, > knowledgeable, capable, interested supporters. Hmmm...... > > E. I was going to add some helpful advice (i.e. ranting) about working > together and taking the bull by the horns and running it up the flagpole to > see if the cat licks it up, etc. but I'll refrain. I certainly don't want to > denigrate all the effort that has been made -- I just want to see more of it! > :) > > F. Note that I've identified all my comments by helpful numbers and letters > so you can reply: > > "Gee, Paul, I thought point B4 was particularly enlightening. Can I send you > some money?" > > Paul >
