+1
You are stating the situation absolutely correct! Exactly the
same is happening now what happened with the decision to get a
release version D1 and start with D2.
it has been an experiment ever since with D2 and I quit the rat
race - keeping up with bad docs, features I don't need etc..
On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 16:10:57 UTC, eles wrote:
On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 14:27:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 14:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:54:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:16:32 UTC, eles wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 12:59:33 UTC, Dicebot
wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 15:49:46 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
It sounds like you have overly positive memories of D1.
Working with it daily and especially dealing with all the
compiler bugs we had back then (and still have with dmd1) - it
is hardly an experience I'd want newcomer to have. Lacking
quality of the toolchain kills any benefit from the language
simplicity.
Ypu are comparing the D2 toolchain from today with the D1
toolchain from back then (as the work on the latter stalled
when the language was retired, and the bulk of the work on D2
toolchain - and language - was done in the last 1.5-2 years).
Back then I doubt that D2 toolchain was in better shape than
D1. Yes, the latter was doomed by the Phobos vs Tango issue,
but that wasn't the fault of the language.
But I do not discuss about toolchains, but about the language
versions (D1 and D2) themselves. Please, for the remaininig of
the discussion, let's not mix the language and the toolchain.
Point is, after so many years, D in its current incarnation
(D2) is in the same recurring stage (and I speak about the
language): on one hand, need to tie up some knots and ensure
consistency and stability of the language. On the other hands,
the need to modify the curren design and implement nicer
features. I feel that the two conflict too much already.
OTOH, D2's design is far from reaching the ideal, and many
ideas needs pushing the frontier even further.
The approach that I had in mind was to let D1 there for peple
who need to compile code and let D2 also there for people who
need to innovate their code. Then, once a feature is tested and
re-tested and the design of it is concidered to be optimal, it
is migrated from D2 to D1. It doesn't need to be immediately,
but over a span that could e even 6 months. People will have
time to adapt their skills and their code to integrate (or take
advantage) of the new feature.
Then, the new frontlines would become D1.1 and D2.1.
