Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 10 de mayo a las 11:21 me escribiste:
I posted it in this very same thread, just before the link to the GDB
patches link. Here it is again:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Getting_D_language_patch_into_GDB_82597.html
Thank you.
Given all the beating of breasts and rending of robes about D1 not being
stable and breaking code even when a bug is fixed in it, I just can't
see coming out with a new D1 that substantially breaks every existing D1
code base.
It would break all existing D1 code base?
I suspect it would break pretty much all the non-trivial code.
If the compiler were really open source, and the frontend were in a public
repository, and fixes would be well separated patches, you wouldn't have
to maintain 3 D version.
It's not just me, it's the poor sap who has to maintain 3 different
versions of his library.
D2 has already taken the steps necessary to support both Phobos and Tango.
But D2 is not nearly ready for production use. D1 is almost there... Is
missing so little that it's frustrating.
I don't believe that contract inheritance is the key to production use.
There shouldn't be anything standing in the way of using D1 for
production use, and in fact it is being used that way.
In case you are not following the thread about interior pointers, here is
another drawback for the Tango vs. Phobos problem, here is copy&pasted
fragment:
I think it would be great to have a centralized place where to put this
improvements. This is another situation where I think Tango vs. Phobos
issue is killing D. When I started my work in the thesis I had to decide
whether to work with Phobos or Tango. I finally decided for Tango, because
is the only option for LDC and because is way better organized (and more
receptive to patches). But I hate knowing that my work will be available
(in the best case) only for people using Tango.
I don't believe that splitting D into yet another separate version can
fix this, as then the user has to decide which D to use.
