On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:09:31 -0400, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
In any case, that poster seems knowledgeable enough that I don't see
much point in arguing with him. His opinion obviously differs from that
of most of us on this list, but it's generally based quite soundly on
facts, so only time will prove him wrong.
Sure, but it all depends on how one interprets those facts.
For example, C++ is hardly the same language it was in 1988 or so, when
it became widely used. I don't think any pre-2000 C++ compiler would be
remotely considered usable today. Languages that are not dead go through
substantial revisions and upgrades. It is not a defect in D that it does
so, too.
As anyone can see in the changelog, we've stopped adding features to D2
and are working on toolchain issues. There's been a lot of progress
there.
While I agree D2 will be a great platform to develop with, it's currently
unusable for any major project IMO.
I think the #1 reason is this: Yes D2 compiler has stopped adding
features, but D2 standard library is comprised of half-baked components
and rapidly changing ones (and getting new instances of these monthly).
Before we can compare apples to apples, we need to stabilize phobos. But
I don't think we should rush this, let's make phobos the best it can be
first, and then freeze it.
I'll say that I developed a medium sized project with Tango, and I think
at this point, if I wanted to upgrade, I would have to spend significant
time porting it to the latest version. That was only about a year and a
half ago. Tango may have stabilized in recent times (haven't looked at it
in a while), but phobos 2 is nowhere near as usable as Tango was a year
and a half ago. Lets focus on getting it there and stop worrying about
how some guy doesn't like D.
-Steve
