4 ms·

I've heard before that there is a schism in the D community between two different options, but never can remember what it is. Something that fragments the ecosy

I've heard before that there is a schism in the D community between two different options, but never can remember what it is. Something that fragments the ecosystem?

mhh__ 6y ago
There was a schism the best part of 15 years ago now.
gmfawcett 6y ago
You might mean the D1 vs. D2 schism. That was ages ago, it hasn't been a live issue for a very long time.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wk_end 6y ago
IIRC there were two different standard libs at one point. I don't believe that's an issue anymore.
scythe 6y ago
D's biggest problem at this point is that everyone (including me) vaguely remembers that period where it was in limbo between different design strategies, and consequently frets: "is it stable yet?". Luckily, that seems to finally have reached a "yes!". Development continues, but nobody's getting the rug pulled out from under them anymore.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > finally That really arrived with Andrei Alexandrescu's book which was 10 years ago now.
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    I heard about this schism less than 5 years ago so there's probably some pages/blogs/talks that need to be updated.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      It's mostly second hand commentary. HN is an outlier in that people have even heard of D, for some perspective.
acehreli 6y ago
I've been in the D community since 2009. There is no schism.
lhorie 6y ago
There were two stdlibs in D1 (the official one called phobos, and tango which had a more "java-like" feel). I haven't been following D for years, but it looks like Tango sort of died off when work on D2 started to get traction[0] [0] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/920 http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/920
- ironmagma 6y ago
  Thanks for that context. I wish that information was more obvious and well-documented since it seems like enough people still don’t know the details. D does seem useful and it’s something I want to pick up someday but had been holding off because that situation sounded so demotivating.
  - destructionator 6y ago
    What irks me is this stuff is all from before 2007 - that's when the runtime support lib branches were merged - yet social media comments make it sound like it is today. I'm a bit irked personally at people saying "D1" vs "D2" too. I use scare quotes because they actually came out at about the same time. There's only really one D language that's gone through a consistent evolutionary process. In January 2007, a "stable" branch was arbitrarily forked off the language. This was labeled "D 1.0". It wasn't exactly stable yet; it still got some new features and even some breaking changes applies to it from the dev branch, but most the more experimental stuff didn't get merged. In summer 2007 - mere months later - the "dev branch" got arbitrarily rebranded "D 2.0" There was nothing particularly special about that release, it didn't even have any real breaking changes. It was just slapped with a new label, but this was the ongoing evolution D has had since the beginning. A little while later, the dev branch, aka D2, did start getting some more major breaking changes, like the const and immutable system being added (at first nothing broke, but then the type of string literals was changed from char[] to immutable(char)[] and that was a fairly big change since strings are used everywhere), while the stable branch, aka D1, would start to get only bug fixes. People call this a "community split", but that's just not really how it happened. The stable branch was mostly maintained for a few corporate clients who didn't want to adapt to an array reallocation change in the runtime (despite general agreement the new way was better, they were just heavily invested in the old way and it would take some time to confirm their code wasn't adversely affected) while most everyone else embraced the ongoing evolution. There were a few years of kinda obnoxious churn - I remember being quite annoyed when the std.string tolower got renamed to toLower among other "consistency" updates - but like it really wasn't that big of a deal for most of us. I think it was a mistake to call it "D1". It should have probably just been something like "D extended support edition". But the name was what it was and online commenters continue to misrepresent what actually happened now, 14 years [!] (yikes i've been in the community a long time now) later.

I've heard before that there is a schism in the D community between two different options, but never can remember what it is. Something that fragments the ecosystem?

mhh__ 6y ago

There was a schism the best part of 15 years ago now.

gmfawcett 6y ago

You might mean the D1 vs. D2 schism. That was ages ago, it hasn't been a live issue for a very long time.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wk_end 6y ago

IIRC there were two different standard libs at one point. I don't believe that's an issue anymore.

scythe 6y ago

D's biggest problem at this point is that everyone (including me) vaguely remembers that period where it was in limbo between different design strategies, and consequently frets: "is it stable yet?". Luckily, that seems to finally have reached a "yes!". Development continues, but nobody's getting the rug pulled out from under them anymore.

mhh__ 6y ago
> finally That really arrived with Andrei Alexandrescu's book which was 10 years ago now.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  I heard about this schism less than 5 years ago so there's probably some pages/blogs/talks that need to be updated.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    It's mostly second hand commentary. HN is an outlier in that people have even heard of D, for some perspective.

acehreli 6y ago

I've been in the D community since 2009. There is no schism.

lhorie 6y ago

There were two stdlibs in D1 (the official one called phobos, and tango which had a more "java-like" feel). I haven't been following D for years, but it looks like Tango sort of died off when work on D2 started to get traction[0] [0] http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/920 http://www.dsource.org/projects/tango/forums/topic/920

ironmagma 6y ago
Thanks for that context. I wish that information was more obvious and well-documented since it seems like enough people still don’t know the details. D does seem useful and it’s something I want to pick up someday but had been holding off because that situation sounded so demotivating.
- destructionator 6y ago
  What irks me is this stuff is all from before 2007 - that's when the runtime support lib branches were merged - yet social media comments make it sound like it is today. I'm a bit irked personally at people saying "D1" vs "D2" too. I use scare quotes because they actually came out at about the same time. There's only really one D language that's gone through a consistent evolutionary process. In January 2007, a "stable" branch was arbitrarily forked off the language. This was labeled "D 1.0". It wasn't exactly stable yet; it still got some new features and even some breaking changes applies to it from the dev branch, but most the more experimental stuff didn't get merged. In summer 2007 - mere months later - the "dev branch" got arbitrarily rebranded "D 2.0" There was nothing particularly special about that release, it didn't even have any real breaking changes. It was just slapped with a new label, but this was the ongoing evolution D has had since the beginning. A little while later, the dev branch, aka D2, did start getting some more major breaking changes, like the const and immutable system being added (at first nothing broke, but then the type of string literals was changed from char[] to immutable(char)[] and that was a fairly big change since strings are used everywhere), while the stable branch, aka D1, would start to get only bug fixes. People call this a "community split", but that's just not really how it happened. The stable branch was mostly maintained for a few corporate clients who didn't want to adapt to an array reallocation change in the runtime (despite general agreement the new way was better, they were just heavily invested in the old way and it would take some time to confirm their code wasn't adversely affected) while most everyone else embraced the ongoing evolution. There were a few years of kinda obnoxious churn - I remember being quite annoyed when the std.string tolower got renamed to toLower among other "consistency" updates - but like it really wasn't that big of a deal for most of us. I think it was a mistake to call it "D1". It should have probably just been something like "D extended support edition". But the name was what it was and online commenters continue to misrepresent what actually happened now, 14 years [!] (yikes i've been in the community a long time now) later.