On Saturday, 27 September 2014 at 12:20:01 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
D.gnu wrote:
On 27 September 2014 13:11, ketmar via D.gnu
<d.gnu@puremagic.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:47:33 +0000
"Ledd via D.gnu" <d.gnu@puremagic.com> wrote:
I don't think that the gcc team is slow on releasing new
releases
and patches
they are much slower than D team.
I think that on one hand it's true that D is
currently a rapidly-changing language, but this also prevents
a
gain in popularity, no one wants to adopt a non-standard
language
that is constantly mutating for production code.
at least three companies already adopted D: Facebook,
Sociomantic
and... sorry, i forgot the third. so your "no one" is a slight
exaggeration. ;-)
My assumption is that D needs to freeze at some point .
ahem... we already have C++. ;-) it's not frozen, but it's
legacy turned
it to abomination.
i believe that shipping old D in distributives will harm D
more than
not shipping at all. people will write new code using obsolete
features, fight with already-fixed bugs, and so on. being
independent of
GCC allow to avoid such problems, 'cause maintainer can build
new
package when new GDC is out. but if GDC will be the part of
GCC, no
updates will ship until new GCC is out, 'cause GDC release
cycle will be
dependent of GCC release cycle.
And for sure, the team pushing for DDMD will have to be a
little more
backwards compatible than previous release can build next
release.
I can't see the problem, do you think that a rolling-release
language is good for its own popularity and diffusion ?
The only credible alternative is that you make D extremely easy
to refactor via automated tools so you can change it as much as
you want while keeping the codebase working .
