Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:53:34 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Monday, January 31, 2011 11:31:29 Jesse Phillips wrote: >> Trass3r Wrote: >> > > I've chosen to only work with D1/Tango from start, and I simply >> > > don't recognize the frustration many are feeling. I'm only >> > > concerned over that there ARE quite a few developers that seems to >> > > have been turned off by instability, and the Phobos/Tango-problem. >> > >> > Well, if nobody acted as a guinea pig, no issues would be uncovered >> > ;) And though I already encountered several blocker bugs myself I got >> > the feeling that the situation has become way better. Of course if, >> > for some reason, you absolutely need x64 or have a hard deadline for >> > your project then D1 is probably the better way to go. >> >> Andrei put for the question once of, "How many issues would users run >> across if they stuck to those features that are also available in >> v1.0?" >> >> I think the answer would be more then sticking with a D1 compiler, but >> not nearly the number people do hit, which is also diminishing rapidly. >> >> I do not think there is an issue with using D2 in a new project, but if >> you have to ask you probably should go with D1. I say this because >> someone who is aware of the issues present in the language is able to >> decide if their desired project would be hindered by the bug. There are >> definitely some projects, with constraints which would not make D a >> very good choice. >> >> For example D would make a great language on an embedded device, but >> currently the first one to take it on will have a massive overhead to >> make it work. > > Personally, I find that it's issues such as not being able to link C or > C++ code compiled by Microsoft's compiler with code compiled by dmd > which would stop be me from being able to use D in projects at work. The > stability of the compiler is an issue, but the linker issue totally > kills it before the stability issue would even come up. Pretty much > everything I work on at work has to run on both Linux and Windows (and > soon Mac OS X), and we use Microsoft's compiler here, so D could would > _have_ to be able to link with code compiled by Microsoft's compiler. > The issue of D1 or D2 is completely irrelevant.
I don't do Windows development, but not being able to use popular third party development tools because of object file format issues sounds like a huge problem. I did a quick look at the digitalmars site. The limitation is only mentioned once in the FAQ section. A competent programmer might also discover that by reading the optlink page. Also no mention of the quality of D2 toolchain. "1.030 stable", "1.066 latest", and mysterious "2.051". I would assume it's stable. But like Ulrik said "the kind of bug-reports I hear frustration around, it seems D2 should still be considered beta"
