On Sunday, 28 September 2014 at 11:19:21 UTC, ketmar via D.gnu
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:44:20 +0000
"Ledd via D.gnu" <d.gnu@puremagic.com> wrote:
My point being that for the majority of people, the ones that
work on open source projects, large projects, productions for
the
masses, a stable language and a predictable release cycle, is
more valuable then a cutting-edge feature-reach language .
so they can take a stable language with predictable release
cycle and
so on. C, for example. D must change faster, not slower. i
can't see
why i should lose features which makes D valuable for me to
please
imaginary future adopters.
That's because you are not thinking about the "shipping date" as
a feature, you are not even considering it as an option.
You will never get 1 single customer if you say "I can do X for
you but I can't determine when I'll ship that" . And any
developer interested in D is a customer of yours .
A predictable release cycle it's absolutely not about "losing
features" C and C++ in the gcc compiler have all the bells and
whistles, they even have the compiler support for technologies
way beyond the ISO C or C++ standards .
Also, on average, you get a new release of gcc every 2-3 months,
with a new milestone being published in about 11-12 months . I
can't think about this as a problem, there are commercial C/C++
compilers that don't have half of the same features that gcc
offers .
the first release of D1 is about 13 years old, D2 is about 7
years old, it's probably time to decide whether it will be a
rolling-release language as long as it will live or to
stabilize/standardize it . I don't think that keeping things as
they are will do any good to D .
