On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 at 10:43:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 08:02 +0000, eugene via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Hello, everyone,
will ISO D be in future or not?
I am not sure this would be a good thing. Given the history of
Fortran, C, and C++, avoiding ISO standardization processes
would seem to be a good thing for any other programming
language. Even the Java process is fairly dreadful.
Having a sensible version release programme is more important
that a standard, though having a formal language specification
in machine readable format is a good idea.
avoiding ISO standardization processes would seem to be a good
thing for any other programming language
I disagree. ISO, or not ISO, D should be standardized/stabilized.
I dropped D once about a year ago because the new DMD version has
broken backward compatibility. Some libraries have stopped
compiling, and it caused a huge mess in dub package manager.
I was trying to build Dash engine with dub, spent some days with
this package hell, and ended up with removing dub from my PC.
As for C++98, it didn't change since 1998, and I'm pretty sure I
can compile anything written in C++98 even today.
I can't say I love C++, but I like its versioning. C++98, C++11,
C++14 seems to be different languages, and nobody's trying to
compile C++11 code with C++98 compiler.
Regards,
Alexey
