SiegeLord Wrote: > Justin Johansson Wrote: > > > Now that Andrei's much anticipated publication of TDPL is out, is it > > time that D1 should now perish? > > > > My personal feeling is that by cremating D1, time and effort can then be > > better expended and focused on solidifying D2. > > > > Cheers > > Justin Johansson > > To whose benefit? You are advocating nerfing a good, stable, usable language > that has an excellent (de facto) standard library, excellent compilers (on > Linux, at least), 64 bit support, tons of libraries already written for it > etc, and replacing it with a buggy language, buggy standard library, buggy > linker, no 64 bit support and only a handful of libraries to support > developing in it. > > How do users benefit from your suggestion? I have scientific computing that > must be done *right now* as well as games I want to develop *right now* and I > don't want suffer the performance losses that come from DMD's substandard > optimizer (at least, relative to LLVM), as well as Phobos 2's abstractions > (although a better compiler might solve those issues) and not using 64 bits. > I just tried installing dmd2 on my 64 bit Linux box, and while it installed, > I couldn't compile "Hello World", since I have no 32 bit versions of 32 bit > pthread libraries installed. I am not going to install 32 bit versions of > every library I use in my C++ development to use them in D2, that is simply > unreasonable: I will use D1 instead. > > And I'm not worried about investing into D1 and then have my work be > obsolete: I am fully planning on porting my things to D2 *when* it becomes > better than or even as good as D1 for my purposes. It's easy to do... just > don't use too many deprecated features. > > D2 will only become the dominant version if it is actively better than D1, > not by making D1 "disappear." Users are not going to encounter those issues > and start spending their "time and effort" improving the standard library and > compiler tools, it isn't worth their time: they will go use a different > language instead. For D2's future's sake, that different language should be > D1. >
Excellent points. I do believe, at the moment, D1 is used for real work, not D2. So idea of shooting D1 so half finished D2 could 'gain momentum' is idiotic one.
