On Friday, 16 October 2015 at 17:58:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
How is whether there's a 0 before the 68 anything but
bikeshedding? It's the same number either way, it sorts better
as-is, and it would be inconsistent of us to change now.
Changing how the overall numbering scheme works might make
sense, but simply removing the 0 wouldn't gain us anything as
far as I can see.
- Jonathan M Davis
How? Let me explain.
Removing a zero is not what this is about. What we are talking
about is marketing.
For D to be successful, to grow in users and respect, it has to
accept that certain things must be done. It must appear to be
part of the gang.
The versioning system that D uses is a reflection of the product
as a whole. It's the same as the website and the tooling, etc.
We, i.e. the D community, are using a version scheme no-one else
uses. It confuses everyone who tries to understand it. For
example, no one understands why there is a zero there. No-one
understands why we are at a minor version of 68. Look at the
version numbers of popular languages and then look at D. D is the
odd one out!
D is full of these little details that are unfinished and
strange. This is not the only reason, but it contributes to why D
is not taken seriously. During a dconf talk where Andrie said
(paraphrasing from his 2013 Quo Vadis talk?) to be a player we
have to do what the big boys do. Well that totally went out the
window immediately after the conference. Because every suggestion
made to follow suit of the big boys always ends in cries of
bikeshedding, it's unnecessary, etc. It's not unnecessary, it's
what developers expect from professional management of a language.
Updating the version scheme to be more standardised and strict
will give D more cachet. It will result more trust in the overall
product.
At this stage it's all about publicity and marketing. If Walter
and Andrei don't understand this, the foundation is going nowhere.
