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.
