Replacing unsupported D1 with unfinished D2 does not seem to me
like good idea for language.
I like D, and I wish to learn it and use it.
But so many issues and bug fixes scares me from using it.
High activity in the project to me does not look like sign of
good support, more like unstable and buggy implementation. Maybe
problem is in implementation language you want to replace? I
guess, best test for language is compiler bootstrapping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_%28compilers%29
IMHO, if you want million of users, at least no new feature
should be added before number of issues and bug fixes stabilize
to about one per month
Thanks
On Saturday, 13 December 2014 at 12:27:01 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:38:47 +0000
ddj via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:
You already have better D1.
as D2 wasn't created from the scratch, it was easier to reuse
already
written c++ code. there is no big difference in having D2
compiler
written in c++ or in D1, both of them are not D2. DMD c++ is
very close
to "restricted c with classes" with banned STL, templates,
multiple
inheritance and so on. so it doesn't really matters.
besides, having it written in D1 means that D1 compiler must be
supported all this time, making devs effectively support TWO D
versions
instead of one. and by using c++ devs can "outsource" c++
support to
another teams. ;-)
