== Quote from Ary Borenszweig (a...@esperanto.org.ar)'s article > Daniel Keep wrote: > > > > ValeriM wrote: > >> Ary Borenszweig Wrote: > >> > >>> Mike James escribi�: > >>>> What is the state of play with D1.0 vs. D2.0? > >>>> > >>>> Is D1.0 a dead-end and D2.0 should be used for future projects? > >>>> > >>>> Is D2.0 stable enough for use at the present? > >>>> > >>>> Is Tango for D2.0 at a level of D1.0 and can be used now? > >>>> > >>>> Is DWT ready for D2.0 now? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, mike. > >>> I don't know why a lot of people see D1.0 as a dead-end. It's a stable > >>> language. It won't get new features. It won't change. It'll probably > >>> receive bug fixes. It works. It gets the job done. You can use it and be > >>> sure than in a time all of what you did will still be compatible with > >>> "newer" versions of D1. > >> No. It's not stable. > >> Try to build last Tango and DWT releases with D1.041 and you will get the problems. > > > > "It's a stable language." > > > > Note the use of the word "language." > > > > What you're referring to are bugs in the compiler. It happens. > > > > -- Daniel > But ValieriM has a point. If I code, say, a library in D 1.041 only to > find out that in a couple of months it won't compile anymore in D 1.045, > that's not good at all. That's when someone sends a message to the > newsgroups saying "I just downloaded library Foo, but it won't compile > with D 1.045... is it abandoned? Why isn't it maintained? D1 is broken". > The point is, you shouldn't need to maintain libraries for D1 anymore. > Maybe the test suite for D1 should be bigger to cover more cases...
Yes, but there's a difference between being broken in some trivial way that requires a few greps and a recompile and being broken in a way that requires people to actually review and possibly redesign parts of the code to fix it. I really don't see how the former is a big deal.
