Walter Bright Wrote: > Steve Teale wrote: > > This is the sort of answer that will kill D. The guy comes back after > > 2 years, asks a straight question, and get's told "business as usual, > > we're still arguing among ourselves about what it should be". > > > > Maybe Tiobe is right! Lots of others may not even bother to ask. They > > just visit the newsgroup, read a page of it, and conclude "same old, > > same old", and go away. > > > > D should be D, not maybe 1.043, or let's wait a while and see what > > happens with D2. Potential real users hate uncertainty. If they are > > going to commit, then D must do so too. > > What bothers me about this sentiment is that every other mainstream > language undergoes revision, sometimes major ones, but that never seems > to be an excuse for people to not use it. > > For example, C++ is quite in flux with C++0x. > > The only languages that are not undergoing revision are dead ones.
Yes Walter, but C++ went through a tedious standardization process - itself a long argument. So there was some basis for people to think that it had 'got there'. But to come back after 2 years and find the same stuff still going on is depressing - been there done that. OK, it didn't put me off, I'm still in there, but it bothers me. I'd be dishonest if I said otherwise. I am not criticizing you. I think you are doing a great job under the pressure of a slew of suggestions. But maybe a line in the sand at some point? OK so for those who crave stability there is D1.x, but when all the focus appears to be on D2, what level of confidence is afforded to D1 users. Can a project Manager cross his heart and say that D1 will still be alive and well in five years time?
