Steve Teale wrote:
dsimcha Wrote:
I feel that miscellaneous toolchain issues (other than implementing changes to
the
spec and fixing bugs that severely affect the usability of language features)
are
an order of magnitude less important because this stuff can always be done after
the fact without breaking code. In other words, once the spec is finalized and
a
decent reference implementation is out the door, people can confidently use D2
knowing that the situation will only get better. Until then, it's two steps
forward, one step back when code breaks in non-trivial ways due to a spec change
or a compiler bug makes a seemingly useful feature that you planned on using
absolutely useless.
Dsimcha,
Everything can be done later. The concern is 'will it'. If D dies on the way
because people come to look __again__ and see same-old, same-old, then this is
a real risk.
Steve
...except everything isn't same-old same-old! A lot of exciting things
have happened in the last year:
- The D2 spec is soon finished.
- Phobos is being completely rewritten, and from what I've seen
so far I think it is a beautiful piece of work.
- The DMD compiler is available for more architectures than ever.
- A D book is being written by a well-known author and C++ expert.
- An alternative compiler is in active development. It is built on
a modern compiler infrastructure, and it is developed by a team of
people instead of just one person. This should secure its future
somewhat. I suspect that once the D1 version is in place, the
D2 version won't be far behind.
- The DMD compiler is now open source. It is easier than ever to
tweak and patch it, and to make a D compiler of your own.
I think these are exciting times in which to be a D user! :)
-Lars
