On 2/15/12 4:40 PM, Don wrote:
On 13.02.2012 19:17, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Second, coming up with another D-derived brand is a bad marketing move.
We've been hurt for too long a time by D1/D2.
Andrei, can I ask you to please never mention D1 again? You seem to have
_fundamental_ misconceptions about it. It's obvious that D1 was
exceedingly poorly explained, to the extent that even you didn't
understand it, and you've spread your misunderstandings everywhere.
And THAT has been a marketing disaster.
To try to set the record straight:
The D language has been developed continuously since the beginning.
"D1" is a stability snapshot of DMD 1.015.
"D2" is the continued development of D after 1.015.
There was no change in the rate of language development before the
stability snapshot (ie, what went into D1) vs after the stability
snapshot (what has gone into D2). There was no decision "1.015 is a good
enough language, let's stabilize on this". It was essentially a freezing
of the language development at a largely arbitrary point, for purposes
of stability. Most importantly, note that "D1" was not planned. It's not
a language that anyone wanted. It's just a snapshot.
And it was successful - 75% of the open bugs are D2-only.
Any mention of D1 as if it were the "first attempt" of the D language is
offensive, and wrong.
Here's the original announcement of D1:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/Stick_a_fork_in_it_8521.html
All of this is in agreement with my understanding of the situation, so I
fail to see where my fundamental misconceptions would be. Is it possible
that your perception of my view of D1 is inaccurate? As a simple
starting point, note that none of the above contradicts, either directly
or indirectly, my assertion.
Thanks,
Andrei
