• Matthew (27/27) Mar 09 2005 Just wanted to solicit opinion, from y'all _and_ from Walter.
• pragma (36/37) Mar 09 2005 In short: we need to establish basic criteria for submitting a language ...
• Matthew (3/40) Mar 09 2005 All sounds good, apart from the Impact to the lexer/parser. Why should o...
• Dave (16/88) Mar 10 2005 I don't think Eric meant in in that way.. I don't think he was implying ...
• pragma (28/62) Mar 10 2005 Dave, thank you for making my point. That's exactly what I was trying to
• Walter (9/18) Mar 10 2005 that
• Paul Bonser (10/47) Mar 10 2005 Howzabout a "feature" request type script on the website? Combined with
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (5/7) Mar 10 2005 A bugzilla like system to report RFE and Bugs have been suggested...
• Lionello Lunesu (6/6) Mar 10 2005 Ah yes! I repeat: a PEP like system ( http://www.python.org/peps/ ) to t...
• Charlie Patterson (9/36) Mar 10 2005 I think Walter needs to lay down the official language rules for 1.0, 1....
• Matthew (20/69) Mar 10 2005 But do you take Kris' point made a few days ago, that in some sense this...
• Charlie Patterson (28/40) Mar 11 2005 Matthew, you're a very smart guy but your attempts to have your way here...
• John Reimer (32/85) Mar 11 2005 I disagree. Matthew and Kris both have made a strong argument.
• Matthew (38/80) Mar 11 2005 You're correct in that I want my way. In that I am no more and no less
• Charlie Patterson (37/56) Mar 14 2005 I respect that.

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

Just wanted to solicit opinion, from y'all _and_ from Walter.

Basically, I feel like there's a momentum building with progress in the 
language, which is a good thing. I guess this is in part because I'm 
more involved, and partly because the looming writing of DPD is adding 
impetus, and partly because Walter seems to be reacting more quickly and 
positively to criticism.

However, there's still a tendency for threads about specific issues to 
meander all over the place, and lose focus.

I was wondering whether now might be the time to tighten things up 
somewhat. I have no specific idea how, and no desire to burden any 
single individual (especially me!) with a whole load of work, but I feel 
like there may be a better way for formal language changes and 
criticisms (=== 'critiques' to my U.S. friends) than mixing things up on 
the main ng.

Thoughts?

Cheers

Matthew

P.S. FYI: It's been noted that I've been quite aggressive in the last 
week or two, almost Kris-like on occasion. I know that Walter has a 
strong back, so this is not for his benefit, but I'd still like to 
explain so you don't all think I'm just a grumpy bastard who's carping 
for the sake of it. Ironically, it reflects the fact that I'm finally 
getting a good feeling about D, in terms of what it is turning into, its 
usefulness, and its likely 'release' into the real world. Naturally, in 
writing DPD, I am very keen not to be have to be describing things that 
I think are embarassingly stupid or ill-considered, so am probably 
leaking positive fervour into negative postings.

pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <d0o79t$mu2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
Thoughts?

In short: we need to establish basic criteria for submitting a language change.

(*short-short version at end)

My understanding of the "language development process" in this group was one of
consensus, weighted by experience, in the eyes of Walter himself.  I think that
the experiment put forward with adding '$' in 0.116 did a good job of
illustrating  how this process works.

If we're *all* looking to get our opinion out, contribute, and do so in an
orderly fashion, perhaps we need to raise the bar for language
changes/suggestions?

I think we need to start taking suggestions as *suggestions* and give more
attention to proposals that have been researched and investigated before they're
put forward for "review".

I'm not suggesting that we all suddenly put on our Booch/Jacobson/Rumbaugh hats
and crank out whitepapers all afternoon.  I am suggesting that attention be
given to only those ideas that have taken the following into account:

- Impact to the lexer/parser
- Impact to the developer's behavior and habits
- Impact to existing code

.. and posted this information *succinctly* to the thread.  And by "Impact" I
really mean "pros and cons"; everything, no one-sided content allowed. 

The actual *change* comes about from the information provided in the 'proposal'.
It automatically frames the discussion to follow it as its already put up a good
argument for and against.

The rest comes from good reader habits, and modifying the proposal as it lives
through the thread.  If you have something to say about a feature proposal,
append your consequences to the text.  If you don't care if Walter sees your
thoughts or not, then leave it out of the modified proposal.

*To Sum Up:
- Language changes should be proposed formally to the group, along with all the
design consequences (for and against).
- Said proposals are subject to review, commentary and modification by the DNG.
- Walter is free to do whatever he pleases with these 'living' proposals, and
can simply walk to the end of the thread to see the current 'consensus' on the
proposal.

- EricAnderton at yahoo

"Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d0oaok$qf0$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <d0o79t$mu2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
Thoughts?

 In short: we need to establish basic criteria for submitting a language change.

 (*short-short version at end)

 My understanding of the "language development process" in this group was one of
 consensus, weighted by experience, in the eyes of Walter himself.  I think that
 the experiment put forward with adding '$' in 0.116 did a good job of
 illustrating  how this process works.

 If we're *all* looking to get our opinion out, contribute, and do so in an
 orderly fashion, perhaps we need to raise the bar for language
 changes/suggestions?

 I think we need to start taking suggestions as *suggestions* and give more
 attention to proposals that have been researched and investigated before
they're
 put forward for "review".

 I'm not suggesting that we all suddenly put on our Booch/Jacobson/Rumbaugh hats
 and crank out whitepapers all afternoon.  I am suggesting that attention be
 given to only those ideas that have taken the following into account:

 - Impact to the lexer/parser
 - Impact to the developer's behavior and habits
 - Impact to existing code

 .. and posted this information *succinctly* to the thread.  And by "Impact" I
 really mean "pros and cons"; everything, no one-sided content allowed.

 The actual *change* comes about from the information provided in the
'proposal'.
 It automatically frames the discussion to follow it as its already put up a
good
 argument for and against.

 The rest comes from good reader habits, and modifying the proposal as it lives
 through the thread.  If you have something to say about a feature proposal,
 append your consequences to the text.  If you don't care if Walter sees your
 thoughts or not, then leave it out of the modified proposal.

 *To Sum Up:
 - Language changes should be proposed formally to the group, along with all the
 design consequences (for and against).
 - Said proposals are subject to review, commentary and modification by the DNG.
 - Walter is free to do whatever he pleases with these 'living' proposals, and
 can simply walk to the end of the thread to see the current 'consensus' on the
 proposal.

All sounds good, apart from the Impact to the lexer/parser. Why should only the
subset of the entire potential user 
community who are well-versed/expert in the ways of compiler technology be the
only ones whose proposals are considered?

"Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:

"Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d0ocrp$s66$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
 news:d0oaok$qf0$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <d0o79t$mu2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
Thoughts?

 In short: we need to establish basic criteria for submitting a language 
 change.

 (*short-short version at end)

 My understanding of the "language development process" in this group was 
 one of
 consensus, weighted by experience, in the eyes of Walter himself.  I 
 think that
 the experiment put forward with adding '$' in 0.116 did a good job of
 illustrating  how this process works.

 If we're *all* looking to get our opinion out, contribute, and do so in 
 an
 orderly fashion, perhaps we need to raise the bar for language
 changes/suggestions?

 I think we need to start taking suggestions as *suggestions* and give 
 more
 attention to proposals that have been researched and investigated before 
 they're
 put forward for "review".

 I'm not suggesting that we all suddenly put on our 
 Booch/Jacobson/Rumbaugh hats
 and crank out whitepapers all afternoon.  I am suggesting that attention 
 be
 given to only those ideas that have taken the following into account:

 - Impact to the lexer/parser
 - Impact to the developer's behavior and habits
 - Impact to existing code

 .. and posted this information *succinctly* to the thread.  And by 
 "Impact" I
 really mean "pros and cons"; everything, no one-sided content allowed.

 The actual *change* comes about from the information provided in the 
 'proposal'.
 It automatically frames the discussion to follow it as its already put up 
 a good
 argument for and against.

 The rest comes from good reader habits, and modifying the proposal as it 
 lives
 through the thread.  If you have something to say about a feature 
 proposal,
 append your consequences to the text.  If you don't care if Walter sees 
 your
 thoughts or not, then leave it out of the modified proposal.

 *To Sum Up:
 - Language changes should be proposed formally to the group, along with 
 all the
 design consequences (for and against).
 - Said proposals are subject to review, commentary and modification by 
 the DNG.
 - Walter is free to do whatever he pleases with these 'living' proposals, 
 and
 can simply walk to the end of the thread to see the current 'consensus' 
 on the
 proposal.

 All sounds good, apart from the Impact to the lexer/parser. Why should 
 only the subset of the entire potential user community who are 
 well-versed/expert in the ways of compiler technology be the only ones 
 whose proposals are considered?

I don't think Eric meant in in that way.. I don't think he was implying that 
compiler developers themselves should have an inordinate amount of sway in 
the design of the language, but that the /impact/ on the compiler should be 
an important consideration.

IMHO, the compiler technology aspect is an important consideration to 
getting the language ported (relatively quickly) to other platforms and/or 
to get other vendors at least interested in rolling their own D compiler.

So I think it is valid that those considerations should have at least some 
reasonable amount of weight in the decision, especially for v1.0.

If something is a kludge to implement in the compiler, it will probably 
end-up being a kludge for the developer as well. For example: 
'vector<vector<...> >' (where you have to have a space in-between ">" & 
">").

- Dave

pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <d0ptf3$2h16$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
"Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d0ocrp$s66$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "pragma" <pragma_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
 *To Sum Up:
 - Language changes should be proposed formally to the group, along with 
 all the
 design consequences (for and against).
 - Said proposals are subject to review, commentary and modification by 
 the DNG.
 - Walter is free to do whatever he pleases with these 'living' proposals, 
 and
 can simply walk to the end of the thread to see the current 'consensus' 
 on the
 proposal.

 All sounds good, apart from the Impact to the lexer/parser. Why should 
 only the subset of the entire potential user community who are 
 well-versed/expert in the ways of compiler technology be the only ones 
 whose proposals are considered?

I don't think Eric meant in in that way.. I don't think he was implying that 
compiler developers themselves should have an inordinate amount of sway in 
the design of the language, but that the /impact/ on the compiler should be 
an important consideration.

IMHO, the compiler technology aspect is an important consideration to 
getting the language ported (relatively quickly) to other platforms and/or 
to get other vendors at least interested in rolling their own D compiler.

So I think it is valid that those considerations should have at least some 
reasonable amount of weight in the decision, especially for v1.0.

If something is a kludge to implement in the compiler, it will probably 
end-up being a kludge for the developer as well. For example: 
'vector<vector<...> >' (where you have to have a space in-between ">" & 
">").

Dave, thank you for making my point. That's exactly what I was trying to
convery.  :)

If you look back at the history of changes made to D, the lex/parse aspects of a
language change has everything to do with its parseabilty which in turn effects
different aspects of the D toolchain (doxygen for instance).  But you can't
design a language change without taking even the most rudimentary parser impacts
into account (look at the '**' thread for a solid example of this).

Yes, it does raise the bar for such feature proposals since its not everyone's
area of expertise.  However, it shouldn't keep anyone from championing a
particular improvment to D even if they have to ask for a little help here and
there.  

I think there's room enough here for someone to say "here's my idea, but what
about the lexer?" and folks will say this or that on the subject.  If it doesn't
interest the group, it doesn't ever mature into a feasable proposal.  That's
what group-development and peer-review is all about.

*I'll also add that some feature requests aren't really language changes, so
parser/lexer impact would be a moot point at best (ie. reflection).


Overall, the notion is to focus our activities from group discussion, to group
*development* of ideas.  Ultimately, this is so Walter can merely pluck the
low-hanging fruit as these ideas ripen into well-developed concepts.

I honestly don't care exactly *how* its done, but I do feel that its essential
to making things work around here.  I also think that my original post is a good
starting point. 


Provided that something like this is the way forward: should we wait to have a
PEP-like system in place, or should we go ahead and start using the newsgroup
here for the review process instead?

- EricAnderton at yahoo

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:d0ptf3$2h16$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 All sounds good, apart from the Impact to the lexer/parser. Why should
 only the subset of the entire potential user community who are
 well-versed/expert in the ways of compiler technology be the only ones
 whose proposals are considered?

 I don't think Eric meant in in that way.. I don't think he was implying

that
 compiler developers themselves should have an inordinate amount of sway in
 the design of the language, but that the /impact/ on the compiler should

be
 an important consideration.

Ease of compiler implementation matters. Back in the old days, I was told by
some members of the C++ committee that implementation ease was irrelevant.
The C++ community is still paying for that attitude with unimplementable
features, a shrinking number of C++ vendors, and erraticly different
behavior from one compiler to the next.

Paul Bonser <misterpib gmail.com> writes:

Matthew wrote:
 Just wanted to solicit opinion, from y'all _and_ from Walter.
 
 Basically, I feel like there's a momentum building with progress in the 
 language, which is a good thing. I guess this is in part because I'm 
 more involved, and partly because the looming writing of DPD is adding 
 impetus, and partly because Walter seems to be reacting more quickly and 
 positively to criticism.
 
 However, there's still a tendency for threads about specific issues to 
 meander all over the place, and lose focus.
 
 I was wondering whether now might be the time to tighten things up 
 somewhat. I have no specific idea how, and no desire to burden any 
 single individual (especially me!) with a whole load of work, but I feel 
 like there may be a better way for formal language changes and 
 criticisms (=== 'critiques' to my U.S. friends) than mixing things up on 
 the main ng.
 
 Thoughts?
 
 Cheers
 
 Matthew
 
 P.S. FYI: It's been noted that I've been quite aggressive in the last 
 week or two, almost Kris-like on occasion. I know that Walter has a 
 strong back, so this is not for his benefit, but I'd still like to 
 explain so you don't all think I'm just a grumpy bastard who's carping 
 for the sake of it. Ironically, it reflects the fact that I'm finally 
 getting a good feeling about D, in terms of what it is turning into, its 
 usefulness, and its likely 'release' into the real world. Naturally, in 
 writing DPD, I am very keen not to be have to be describing things that 
 I think are embarassingly stupid or ill-considered, so am probably 
 leaking positive fervour into negative postings.
 
 
 


Howzabout a "feature" request type script on the website? Combined with 
a bug tracker (I believe the commonly are packaged together, right?) And 
then a voting system for both the features and bugs, showing which 
should be taken seriously and worked on first, respectively.

-- 
-PIB

--
"C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that
are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:

Paul Bonser wrote:

 Howzabout a "feature" request type script on the website? Combined with 
 a bug tracker (I believe the commonly are packaged together, right?)

A bugzilla like system to report RFE and Bugs have been suggested...
Repeatedly. But meanwhile, we have the digitalmars.D.bugs newgroup,
and http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList

--anders

"Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:

Ah yes! I repeat: a PEP like system ( http://www.python.org/peps/ ) to track 
suggestions and
their arguments!

I'll write the first one, PEP000, being a suggestion to have a pep like 
system, etc.. OK? But... Is a wiki suitable for this kind-of thing?

L.

"Charlie Patterson" <charliep1 excite.com> writes:

I think Walter needs to lay down the official language rules for 1.0, 1.1, 
and 2.0.  Some may not like them and drop off, but it would be nice if 1.0 
were no longer a moving target.  2.0 will be open for discussion, proofs, 
hissy-fits, etc, until it gets closer.

Once the target stops moving, people, happy or not, can focus on writing 
books, improved libraries, ports, IDEs, whatever with much more confidence. 
That means no view towards 2.0 while writing these things.

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d0o79t$mu2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Just wanted to solicit opinion, from y'all _and_ from Walter.

 Basically, I feel like there's a momentum building with progress in the 
 language, which is a good thing. I guess this is in part because I'm more 
 involved, and partly because the looming writing of DPD is adding impetus, 
 and partly because Walter seems to be reacting more quickly and positively 
 to criticism.

 However, there's still a tendency for threads about specific issues to 
 meander all over the place, and lose focus.

 I was wondering whether now might be the time to tighten things up 
 somewhat. I have no specific idea how, and no desire to burden any single 
 individual (especially me!) with a whole load of work, but I feel like 
 there may be a better way for formal language changes and criticisms (=== 
 'critiques' to my U.S. friends) than mixing things up on the main ng.

 Thoughts?

 Cheers

 Matthew

 P.S. FYI: It's been noted that I've been quite aggressive in the last week 
 or two, almost Kris-like on occasion. I know that Walter has a strong 
 back, so this is not for his benefit, but I'd still like to explain so you 
 don't all think I'm just a grumpy bastard who's carping for the sake of 
 it. Ironically, it reflects the fact that I'm finally getting a good 
 feeling about D, in terms of what it is turning into, its usefulness, and 
 its likely 'release' into the real world. Naturally, in writing DPD, I am 
 very keen not to be have to be describing things that I think are 
 embarassingly stupid or ill-considered, so am probably leaking positive 
 fervour into negative postings.


 

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

But do you take Kris' point made a few days ago, that in some sense this 
language now belongs to us all?

I think it's fair to say that many are still some way from a point at 
which they could accept D 1.0. Now of course Walter can do exactly as he 
pleases, but I would question the wisdom of releasing 1.0, and thereby 
laying down in stone things that would subsequently be 
difficult/impossible to change, at a time when many of the 'D people' 
consider it unready. It's not a question of blackmail/undue 
influence/whatever, but just common sense.

For my part, D currently contains sufficient flaws that I would be very 
unhappy with a 1.0 line in the sand anytime in the immediate future. 
Pure guestimation inclines me to expect 1.0 sometime around (N.H.) 
autumn.

The opposing force, if you like, is the need to get it to the point 
while the momentum's still on the ascendant, and avoid the "it's just a 
research language" status that it would inevitably receive if it just 
went on and on and on.

The challenge is in working out the sweet spot.



"Charlie Patterson" <charliep1 excite.com> wrote in message 
news:d0q958$2u1c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I think Walter needs to lay down the official language rules for 1.0, 
1.1, and 2.0.  Some may not like them and drop off, but it would be 
nice if 1.0 were no longer a moving target.  2.0 will be open for 
discussion, proofs, hissy-fits, etc, until it gets closer.

 Once the target stops moving, people, happy or not, can focus on 
 writing books, improved libraries, ports, IDEs, whatever with much 
 more confidence. That means no view towards 2.0 while writing these 
 things.

 "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
 news:d0o79t$mu2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Just wanted to solicit opinion, from y'all _and_ from Walter.

 Basically, I feel like there's a momentum building with progress in 
 the language, which is a good thing. I guess this is in part because 
 I'm more involved, and partly because the looming writing of DPD is 
 adding impetus, and partly because Walter seems to be reacting more 
 quickly and positively to criticism.

 However, there's still a tendency for threads about specific issues 
 to meander all over the place, and lose focus.

 I was wondering whether now might be the time to tighten things up 
 somewhat. I have no specific idea how, and no desire to burden any 
 single individual (especially me!) with a whole load of work, but I 
 feel like there may be a better way for formal language changes and 
 criticisms (=== 'critiques' to my U.S. friends) than mixing things up 
 on the main ng.

 Thoughts?

 Cheers

 Matthew

 P.S. FYI: It's been noted that I've been quite aggressive in the last 
 week or two, almost Kris-like on occasion. I know that Walter has a 
 strong back, so this is not for his benefit, but I'd still like to 
 explain so you don't all think I'm just a grumpy bastard who's 
 carping for the sake of it. Ironically, it reflects the fact that I'm 
 finally getting a good feeling about D, in terms of what it is 
 turning into, its usefulness, and its likely 'release' into the real 
 world. Naturally, in writing DPD, I am very keen not to be have to be 
 describing things that I think are embarassingly stupid or 
 ill-considered, so am probably leaking positive fervour into negative 
 postings.

 

"Charlie Patterson" <charliep1 excite.com> writes:

 "Charlie Patterson" <charliep1 excite.com> wrote in message 
 news:d0q958$2u1c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I think Walter needs to lay down the official language rules for 1.0, 1.1, 
and 2.0.  Some may not like them and drop off, but it would be nice if 1.0 
were no longer a moving target.  2.0 will be open for discussion, proofs, 
hissy-fits, etc, until it gets closer.

 Once the target stops moving, people, happy or not, can focus on writing 
 books, improved libraries, ports, IDEs, whatever with much more 
 confidence. That means no view towards 2.0 while writing these things.


"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d0qjg2$803$4 digitaldaemon.com...
 But do you take Kris' point made a few days ago, that in some sense this 
 language now belongs to us all?

Matthew, you're a very smart guy but your attempts to have your way here 
just shine through!  (Or is it just me?)  I've watched 100-post discussions 
on the same facts in just a month's time and I understand that it has been 
going on.  From my point of view "your" team and "Walter's" team both make 
perfect sense to me, so there will be no solution.

Nothing is being set in stone that can't be added, that I can think of.  It 
is still a.length, no warnings in the language, and asserts in some code, 
etc.  None of these require backing out of a reasonable syntax.  Warnings 
could be added, and syntactic sugar could be dolloped on later.  I have yet 
to see anyone bitch about the Java features that are included or templates, 
etc. so it can move forward.  (I've had a few ideas, but I dont' think it is 
worth bringing up the issue.  Well except for why we need the word "new" 
:-))

So my point is that this is Walter's language even if it is "our" community. 
There is so much to do after a language is set down that it is starting to 
worry me.  Books, template libs, GUI, etc.  These could take months to 
review and rethink.  Honestly, I don't think I'll be able to keep my 
interest up personally through another 2 or 3 rounds of squabbling over 
additional features for 1.0.

I don't think the whole thing will fall apart if you don't get a few more 
things your way.  :-P

In conclusion, since both sides make logical sense up to the opint that no 
one can be sure what is best, it seems the leadership of the creator makes 
sense.

Then, if you want, you can fork the spec and make the E language and take 
your half of the fans with you.  (-:

John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:

Charlie Patterson wrote:
"Charlie Patterson" <charliep1 excite.com> wrote in message 
news:d0q958$2u1c$1 digitaldaemon.com...

I think Walter needs to lay down the official language rules for 1.0, 1.1, 
and 2.0.  Some may not like them and drop off, but it would be nice if 1.0 
were no longer a moving target.  2.0 will be open for discussion, proofs, 
hissy-fits, etc, until it gets closer.

Once the target stops moving, people, happy or not, can focus on writing 
books, improved libraries, ports, IDEs, whatever with much more 
confidence. That means no view towards 2.0 while writing these things.


 
 
 "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
 news:d0qjg2$803$4 digitaldaemon.com...
 
But do you take Kris' point made a few days ago, that in some sense this 
language now belongs to us all?

 
 
 Matthew, you're a very smart guy but your attempts to have your way here 
 just shine through!  (Or is it just me?)  I've watched 100-post discussions 
 on the same facts in just a month's time and I understand that it has been 
 going on.  From my point of view "your" team and "Walter's" team both make 
 perfect sense to me, so there will be no solution.
 
 Nothing is being set in stone that can't be added, that I can think of.  It 
 is still a.length, no warnings in the language, and asserts in some code, 
 etc.  None of these require backing out of a reasonable syntax.  Warnings 
 could be added, and syntactic sugar could be dolloped on later.  I have yet 
 to see anyone bitch about the Java features that are included or templates, 
 etc. so it can move forward.  (I've had a few ideas, but I dont' think it is 
 worth bringing up the issue.  Well except for why we need the word "new" 
 :-))
 
 So my point is that this is Walter's language even if it is "our" community. 
 There is so much to do after a language is set down that it is starting to 
 worry me.  Books, template libs, GUI, etc.  These could take months to 
 review and rethink.  Honestly, I don't think I'll be able to keep my 
 interest up personally through another 2 or 3 rounds of squabbling over 
 additional features for 1.0.
 
 I don't think the whole thing will fall apart if you don't get a few more 
 things your way.  :-P
 
 In conclusion, since both sides make logical sense up to the opint that no 
 one can be sure what is best, it seems the leadership of the creator makes 
 sense.
 
 Then, if you want, you can fork the spec and make the E language and take 
 your half of the fans with you.  (-:
 
 

I disagree.  Matthew and Kris both have made a strong argument.

The D language has received so many suggestions, ideas, and 
contributions from the community over the years that D is no longer 
merely Walter's brainchild anymore. His general ideology remains at it's 
base and guides it's development, but the language as it is today 
(including libraries) can no longer be called his own.  Naturally, fame 
and fortune as the originator of D will always be his to claim.

In order for D to succeed, leadership is indeed critical, but this does 
not mean such leadership monopolizes on opinion.  Leadership provides 
management and direction, something that is Walter's right and 
obligation.  But such a leader must encourage critical analysis, test 
ideas, promote invention and manipulate order from chaos.  As appears to 
be recently evidenced, I believe Walter is taking the first steps in 
this direction; this is indeed exciting.  Although as manager /and/ 
coder, his job description is weighty.  (Walter has also admitted, I 
believe, on several occasions that he is a better coder than manager.)

On the other hand, if his "dictatorship" resists any thought, opinion, 
discourse, or experimentation, he will be quite effective in securing 
failure in D's future.  Therefore, it's within his best interests to be 
as open as possible and to be attentive to reasonable examination.

Walter's receptiveness to critical opinion may be the deciding factor 
for D's success or failure.  In addition, any view that focuses on D as 
being "Walter's language" alone may further stifle any prescient view we 
have of D's future as a successful pandemic programming language.

I want D to succeed.  I desire it deeply.  Kris and Matthew are doing a 
great job of keeping the pressure on Walter.  I hope these guys stick 
around for a very long time.  Their opinions are not always right, but 
that's why the other bright minds in this community are here, to keep 
everything in balance.  And me?  I'm just here to watch the fireworks. ;-)

All the best,

-JJR

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

"Charlie Patterson" <charliep1 excite.com> wrote in message 
news:d0t6ci$lvs$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Charlie Patterson" <charliep1 excite.com> wrote in message 
 news:d0q958$2u1c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I think Walter needs to lay down the official language rules for 1.0, 
1.1, and 2.0.  Some may not like them and drop off, but it would be 
nice if 1.0 were no longer a moving target.  2.0 will be open for 
discussion, proofs, hissy-fits, etc, until it gets closer.

 Once the target stops moving, people, happy or not, can focus on 
 writing books, improved libraries, ports, IDEs, whatever with much 
 more confidence. That means no view towards 2.0 while writing these 
 things.


 "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
 news:d0qjg2$803$4 digitaldaemon.com...
 But do you take Kris' point made a few days ago, that in some sense 
 this language now belongs to us all?

 Matthew, you're a very smart guy but your attempts to have your way 
 here just shine through!  (Or is it just me?)  I've watched 100-post 
 discussions on the same facts in just a month's time and I understand 
 that it has been going on.  From my point of view "your" team and 
 "Walter's" team both make perfect sense to me, so there will be no 
 solution.

 Nothing is being set in stone that can't be added, that I can think 
 of.  It is still a.length, no warnings in the language, and asserts in 
 some code, etc.  None of these require backing out of a reasonable 
 syntax.  Warnings could be added, and syntactic sugar could be 
 dolloped on later.  I have yet to see anyone bitch about the Java 
 features that are included or templates, etc. so it can move forward. 
 (I've had a few ideas, but I dont' think it is worth bringing up the 
 issue.  Well except for why we need the word "new" :-))

 So my point is that this is Walter's language even if it is "our" 
 community. There is so much to do after a language is set down that it 
 is starting to worry me.  Books, template libs, GUI, etc.  These could 
 take months to review and rethink.  Honestly, I don't think I'll be 
 able to keep my interest up personally through another 2 or 3 rounds 
 of squabbling over additional features for 1.0.

 I don't think the whole thing will fall apart if you don't get a few 
 more things your way.  :-P

 In conclusion, since both sides make logical sense up to the opint 
 that no one can be sure what is best, it seems the leadership of the 
 creator makes sense.

 Then, if you want, you can fork the spec and make the E language and 
 take your half of the fans with you.  (-:

You're correct in that I want my way. In that I am no more and no less 
human than the majority of people.

But you are *dead wrong* if you think that I am trying to unduly wrest 
control from Walter and/or turn people against him. With a ***very*** 
few exceptions, Walter has more of my respect than anyone else in this 
industry, irrespective of language or country or company. But I no more 
believe him infallible by dint of his being exceedingly capable and 
intelligent and, at least in many aspects, a better software engineer 
than me, than I do that Einstein was an unmitigated genius. [Einstein 
was inspired/genius wrt relativity (general and relative), but something 
of a dunce when it came to quantum theory.]

Your proposition is ironic indeed, because you will not find someone 
more interested in D succeeding *intact* than me. And, though you could 
not know, I have worked hard over the last two years, both within and 
without this forum, to try and keep the D community from the 
fragmentation that you think I am attempting to foment. You could not be 
more wrong.

I can only assume that you are mistaking the fervour of my recent 
involvement with negativity. Again, you could not be more wrong. [Maybe 
it's a cultural thing? In my culture(s) we do not equate (considered) 
criticism with negativism. At least not to the degree that we've had to 
invent another verb for it ... ;) ] If I thought D was doomed, I 
wouldn't be here. It's not like I don't have a ridiculously long to-do 
list sitting on my desk, scaring me in the eye as I write this.

I now, more than ever, believe that D is going to succeed. But it is not 
without flaws at this point, some of which are, to be blunt, simply 
awful (IMO) and, more concerningly, out of step with the language'
s claims and intents. That it may be superior to (many) other languages 
in some/most aspects right is of little consequence. It is not as good 
as it could be. And, until it is, or until Walter sends me an email 
saying he no longer values my participation, I'm going to keep pointing 
out flaws, and working in any/all other aspects within my purview to 
improve the language, the libraries, and to popularise them.

And I ain't going to apologise for it.

Cheers

Matthew

"Charlie Patterson" <charliep1 excite.com> writes:

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d0tfvp$12d2$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 You're correct in that I want my way. In that I am no more and no less 
 human than the majority of people.

I respect that.

 But you are *dead wrong* if you think that I am trying to unduly wrest 
 control from Walter and/or turn people against him.

Well there's such thing as a coup, which I am not implying; and then there 
is passive aggresive personality issues, which I am.  (-:  I don't think you 
are trying to turn anybody against him, but I do think you are doing 
everything short of it.  I think if your ideas, all good but not perfect, 
were put to a vote for version 1.0, you wouldn't get a strong majority.

 Your proposition is ironic indeed, because you will not find someone more 
 interested in D succeeding *intact* than me.

See, that's just it.  "Intact" to you means your way!  It is "intact", I 
suppose, from Walter's point of view right now.  But I'm not here to speak 
for anyone else.

 And, though you could not know, I have worked hard over the last two 
 years, both within and without this forum, to try and keep the D community 
 from the fragmentation that you think I am attempting to foment. You could 
 not be more wrong.

I have no doubt.

 I now, more than ever, believe that D is going to succeed. But it is not 
 without flaws at this point, some of which are, to be blunt, simply awful 
 (IMO) and, more concerningly, out of step with the language'
 s claims and intents. That it may be superior to (many) other languages in 
 some/most aspects right is of little consequence. It is not as good as it 
 could be. And, until it is, or until Walter sends me an email saying he no 
 longer values my participation, I'm going to keep pointing out flaws, and 
 working in any/all other aspects within my purview to improve the 
 language, the libraries, and to popularise them.

You will never get a letter devaluing your participation and shouldn't.  But 
you keep using words like "flaws" in D and, from what I've read, I don't see 
the issues as flawed as they stand and unflawed when you get your way.

There is a problem space here and there, such as asserts on missing returns. 
I read both sides, I have a Master's and a ABD PhD in computers, and I don't 
see the *answer* in either of your sides.  In other words, either way can 
have bad consequences and, even if one way has more bad consequences than 
the other, we can debate which type of consequences are worse until we turn 
blue.

This means someone has to come up with a wonderful new "a-ha" that will 
require backing up the decision tree and rethinking the whole mess in a new 
light (and I've seen many here do that in various situations),  or it means 
that we will remain without any answer that satisfies.  In the latter case, 
I'm just saying it is my opinion that Walter just does what he intended and 
desires and we make it to 1.0.  It is also my off-the-cuff opinion that when 
Walter makes these decisions, it requires less complexity and finality, 
which means there is a spot for 2.0.  If we added stuff, it would be harder 
to take out if we found a better way later.

Finally, I personally haven't noticed a case where I thought Walter was dead 
wrong and you et al are just right, as I've said above.  If you keep 
insisting that you have the unflawed, "intact" language, then I'm not going 
to be able to agree with you.  I've read the posts and I've made my 
decision.  Sorry!

With respect,
Charlie