Hi Ary, I think this is the issue. I'm not saying that D in itself is lacking anything. I think it is important to put an end to changing D (D2).
What I'm concerned about is that many projects stall. Including a project I started, which is now completely incompatible with D2. What I want to say is that before we miss our chance, we need to get D2 going. I'm rightfully concerned about two main libraries (Phobos and Tango). It's next to being impractical, also very confusing. If I want to develop anything new, I want to know what I should and shouldn't use. So that others are able to use what I develop in a sensible way. I know I'm repeating a discussion that many others already tried to discuss. And I doubt that I'm on my own in this. I'm not saying that I don't want to do anything. I do want to do. But I also want it to be meaningful. So, my first question would be: What is going to be the main-purpose library for D2? Phobos or Tango. With that answered I'm willing to port things over and help development. Without that, knowing that half of the users can't use half of the tools/libraries, I don't see much purpose in doing this. Since it is not realistic, and I can put effort in things that are more worthwhile. Ary Borenszweig Wrote: > Sjoerd van Leent escribió: > > Lately, I've been tuning in to the development of D again. But what I see > > is rather disturbing. > > > > There is a new continuation of the old D, in the newer D2. Personally, I > > think this is good, as long as there will be a defined end to D2. What > > disturbs me more, is that there appears to be no coherent development. > > > > There are all nice ideas, but it appears that one project dies after the > > other. > > > > I see a number of problems, which keep D from growing up. > > > > There appears to be a lack of understanding about whom are going to use the > > language. D is targeted at the niche of C and C++. Next to D, there are > > .NET and Java. These are all competitors. Other popular languages, such as > > Python and Ruby, though being non-system languages, have their share as > > well. As I look at it, I come to some essential conclusions: > > > > All of these environments have a stable language, and on top of that, ONE > > single main library. With C++ this is STL/IOStream, with .NET and Java it's > > their respective libraries. Similar for Python and Ruby. With D however, > > there are at least 2 main libraries (Phobos and Tango), whereof Tango > > doesn't support D2. It is unacceptable for the target audience to find this > > situation. Tools can't interoperate, libraries can't interoperate, etc. > > > > There are a lot of ideas for nice tools. But the essential base is missing. > > For large projects there is the need for a decent IDE and the need for > > dynamic linking. Although attempts are made, it all appears to stall. There > > is barely any usable main-purpose library. > > > > As D2 will be finished hopefully not to long from now, especially the > > specification, I would really request to start thinking about how to > > continue. D is a nice language, with great opportunity. But without > > management, even when it is nice, it will fail. > > > > I would like to ask everyone interested in getting D up and running for > > main-stream purposes, to sit together and think about solutions. > > > > Anyway, I hope I'm not putting too much poison into the newsgroup, but I > > really needed to say this. > > Lately a lot of people are complaining about "D lacks this", "D lacks that". > > I can only speak for the IDE part of your post: I'm working on it, and > I'm almost alone. > > So if you want to do something for D, get your hands dirty.
