dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Ary Borenszweig (a...@esperanto.org.ar)'s article
Stewart Gordon wrote:
All this D2 work seems to have detracted from the task of finishing off D1.
There are 15 issues nominated as d1.0blocker, of which 7* are still
outstanding, including two trackers having 39 dependencies between them.
* Well, 8 if you include 691, fixed only for D2.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=d1.0blocker
While none of these nominations were ever answered, I think most would
agree that being finished means, at the least:
(a) having a spec that the public agrees to be complete and consistent
(b) all language features implemented
(c) all of the most serious known bugs and most of the others fixed
677 and 690 are shortcomings in department (a). (OK, 690 seems to be
almost fixed now, but I'm not sure.) 302 is a failure under (b). While
it's otherwise hard to lay hands on anything particular as why (c) is
yet to be achieved, that just over 2/3 of 340's dependencies are still
open at least says something.
This leaves 317 and 342, which are filed as enhancement requests, but
which people felt important enough that they ought to be in the initial
D1 distribution. 342 is straightforward and, while 317 is a much bigger
task, at least it has progressed (albeit slowly).
But generally, it's about time D1 got a move on....
I'm made to wonder whether, if 1.0 had been held back until it could be
a practical rather than just symbolic milestone, it would be at both by
now.
I've just thought, given this brief inconclusive discussion
http://tinyurl.com/qayz9w
...when we reach this practical milestone, maybe we could call it D 1.1?
Stewart.
I think the major problem with this is that D2 has the same codebase as
D1, so D2 will inherit most of it's bug, like forward references.
Anyone wants to start an open source project to make a new front-end for
D1? :)
This one is interesting and looks reasonably active::
http://code.google.com/p/dil/
It's a D1 front end written in D, and looks reasonably active. It also solves
another problem: Although it's not a particularly urgent thing, eventually D
compilers should be written in D. First, it would be one less things for
skeptics
to complain about.
Cool! I thought all of the D compilers were using DMD's front-end. I'll
take a look at it and try to help.
