• Boris Wang (0/0) Jul 06 2006
• Brad Anderson (3/3) Jul 06 2006 Boris Wang wrote: (nothing)
• Hasan Aljudy (2/7) Jul 06 2006 ditto
• Derek Parnell (8/8) Jul 06 2006 On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:35:20 +0800, Boris Wang wrote:
• Regan Heath (4/4) Jul 06 2006 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and should b...
• Boris Wang (2/6) Jul 06 2006 No, may be something beyond the language itself.
• Justin C Calvarese (8/17) Jul 06 2006 Like the power of negative thinking?
• Boris Wang (4/22) Jul 06 2006 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part...
• Mike Parker (4/13) Jul 07 2006 Ah, so that's what you're after with this question - another platform
• Boris Wang (4/17) Jul 07 2006 Now, it's looks like that make D open source totally, more harder than m...
• Stewart Gordon (4/7) Jul 11 2006 What does it mean for a _language_ to be open source, exactly?
• pragma (8/15) Jul 11 2006 Heh.. good point.
• Mike Parker (5/14) Jul 11 2006 Heh, well. In this context 'D' means 'DMD' - including the back end. He
• Brad Roberts (6/21) Jul 11 2006 D meaning DMD can't be the case since the DMD compiler is most
• Mike Parker (8/12) Jul 12 2006 Does that really matter? Why so pedantic? In a lot of conversations you
• Walter Bright (3/16) Jul 12 2006 I should also point out that David Friedman has just updated GDC to be
• Brad Anderson (24/44) Jul 07 2006 So Boris,
• Boris Wang (5/39) Jul 07 2006 Where can you got this result?
• Lars Ivar Igesund (6/41) Jul 07 2006 It might be your English, but it certainly was what I thought you said t...
• Derek Parnell (9/49) Jul 07 2006 I took it mean...
• BCS (3/38) Jul 07 2006 Just out of curiosity, how did jcc7 get brought up in the first place?
• Jarrett Billingsley (3/4) Jul 07 2006 Because Boris replied to Justin's (jcc7's) post.
• Justin C Calvarese (7/13) Jul 09 2006 True, but I replied to Boris's post first. So it's my fault that I'm
• BCS (3/9) Jul 10 2006 OK, Justin is jcc7. His by line must have gotten dropped in all the edit...
• Boris Wang (2/53) Jul 07 2006
• Boris Wang (4/56) Jul 07 2006 I'm sorry. I should say:
• Brad Anderson (12/24) Jul 07 2006 Wow, I really don't understand you.
• Andrew Fedoniouk (14/14) Jul 06 2006 IMO of course,
• Dave (25/45) Jul 06 2006 IMO, in order for D to "die", there has to be something that would
• Don Clugston (14/55) Jul 07 2006 IMHO, the lack of details about 1.0 is the biggest problem. In
• Tesuji (5/13) Jul 07 2006 Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like refe...
• Walter Bright (4/18) Jul 07 2006 I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective
• Derek Parnell (7/28) Jul 07 2006 Agreed, plus reliablility. A compiler-detected attempt to break a
• Sean Kelly (5/17) Jul 07 2006 I think this is largely useful for self-documenting code and for
• David Medlock (10/36) Jul 07 2006 I feel the same. Libraries either
• BCS (5/13) Jul 07 2006 or
• kris (7/10) Jul 07 2006 No offence intended, but your zip is down
• David Medlock (22/40) Jul 07 2006 "c) Are passed allocated objects, which they are *NOT* allowed to
• Sean Kelly (15/24) Jul 07 2006 This doesn't account for dynamic arrays, which are effectively passed by...
• kris (15/29) Jul 07 2006 Au contraire, my friend ~ it can quickly become a /limitation/ on how
• BCS (36/69) Jul 07 2006 interface fun
• Brad Roberts (15/56) Jul 07 2006 This seems to only include 'core' type libraries. Application level
• David Medlock (10/77) Jul 07 2006 I am not *against* it, I just disagree with people who say its a feature...
• BCS (8/25) Jul 07 2006 How would this be used to ensure immutability with references passed to
• Juan Jose Comellas (6/24) Jul 07 2006 An that's why Java forces you to copy or clone objects all the time, mak...
• Bruno Medeiros (9/53) Jul 08 2006 C is not that much of a good language for mid and large scale projects.
• Walter Bright (5/9) Jul 07 2006 Right now, the lack of partial specialization support in the ifti in D
• Don Clugston (14/25) Jul 07 2006 No, it doesn't. But for developing libraries, when there are bugs like
• Sean Kelly (14/28) Jul 07 2006 Exactly. For ifti I've been operating under the assumption that it was
• Walter Bright (3/12) Jul 07 2006 Not for 1.0.
• Sean Kelly (2/4) Jul 07 2006 Thanks :-)
• Tom S (10/24) Jul 07 2006 Oo.. k... how about:
• leoandru (4/28) Jul 07 2006 Yup. this was something I tried to do recently. It would be a real nice
• Sean Kelly (6/9) Jul 07 2006 No. There's an obvious difference between compiler bugs and spec
• Mike Capp (14/21) Jul 07 2006 Depending on what you're doing, some would say that languages like Eiffe...
• Lionello Lunesu (5/40) Jul 07 2006 I'd have to agree with Andrew here. Why are new features being added
• Trevor Parscal (19/19) Jul 07 2006 In article , Boris Wang says...
• Georg Wrede (79/79) Jul 07 2006 Trevor Parscal wrote:
• Kyle Furlong (5/101) Jul 07 2006 *Standing Ovation*
• Walter Bright (6/7) Jul 07 2006 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make
• sai (2/9) Jul 07 2006
• kris (5/8) Jul 07 2006 Er, perhaps private should actually mean "private" before that happens?
• BCS (9/17) Jul 07 2006 How about a future freeze? I could live with D as it is now, at least in
• Derek Parnell (7/14) Jul 08 2006 Yes! Additional improvements will then show that it is getting even bett...
• Don Clugston (7/16) Jul 08 2006 I think it's a two-step process. My opinion:
• Sean Kelly (8/25) Jul 08 2006 Agreed. As soon as the feature list for 1.0 is decided and any
• BCS (7/22) Jul 08 2006 How about feature-freeze NOW at what is in DMD already and things that a...
• Dave (12/39) Jul 08 2006 Hear, Hear to all of you. I'd be satisfied to even let the const issue
• Georg Wrede (2/23) Jul 11 2006 Precisely!
• clayasaurus (12/22) Jul 08 2006 I agree, I think we should freeze 1.0 now because D as a language has
• Regan Heath (26/33) Jul 08 2006 One thing I think is important before 1.0 is explaining why certain
• Bruno Medeiros (22/35) Jul 09 2006 Here comes the contrarian view:
• Dave (12/53) Jul 09 2006 Good points, but as with everything there is a tradeoff between polish
• Georg Wrede (2/13) Jul 11 2006 Couldn't have said it better!
• clayasaurus (8/49) Jul 09 2006 If it wasn't clear in my post, I do think 2.0 should be radically
• Jeremy (3/52) Jul 09 2006 Eh, I bet "D" will not be very successful if "D++" is *already* planned ...
• Georg Wrede (8/19) Jul 11 2006 I support that!
• John Reimer (5/5) Jul 10 2006 Georg,
• Bruno Medeiros (5/6) Jul 07 2006 Walter dieing on a horrible accident.
• Derek Parnell (6/9) Jul 07 2006 DMD is not D.
• Lionello Lunesu (4/11) Jul 08 2006 It's not? Sure?
• Alexander Panek (4/16) Jul 08 2006 DMD is the reference compiler, though. Don't forget that.

Brad Anderson <brad dsource.org> writes:

Boris Wang wrote: (nothing)

That's some good old fashioned positive thinking for you.

Pfft.

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Brad Anderson wrote:
 Boris Wang wrote: (nothing)
 
 That's some good old fashioned positive thinking for you.
 
 Pfft.

ditto

Derek Parnell <derek nomail.afraid.org> writes:

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:35:20 +0800, Boris Wang wrote:

People who ask silly questions like this one.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"
7/07/2006 1:07:30 PM

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:

Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and should be  
fixed before 1.0?"
If so.. what's your opinion?

Regan

"Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> ??????:optcaubjpw23k2f5 nrage...
 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and should be 
 fixed before 1.0?"
 If so.. what's your opinion?

 Regan

No, may be something beyond the language itself. 

Justin C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:
 "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> ??????:optcaubjpw23k2f5 nrage...
 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and should be 
 fixed before 1.0?"
 If so.. what's your opinion?

 Regan

 
 No, may be something beyond the language itself. 

Like the power of negative thinking?

In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java. 
Sure, D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if 
there were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that 
problem in just a few weeks). ;)

-- 
jcc7

"Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:

"Justin C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com> 
??????:e8kqf9$1hri$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> ??????:optcaubjpw23k2f5 nrage...
 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and should 
 be fixed before 1.0?"
 If so.. what's your opinion?

 Regan

 No, may be something beyond the language itself.

 Like the power of negative thinking?

 In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java. Sure, 
 D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if there 
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that problem 
 in just a few weeks). ;)

Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part in 
the decision of a feature.

 -- 
 jcc7
 

Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:

 In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java. Sure, 
 D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if there 
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that problem 
 in just a few weeks). ;)

 
 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part in 
 the decision of a feature.
 

Ah, so that's what you're after with this question - another platform 
for you to spout off about how D should be open source, as you have 
(repeatedly) in the past. Drop it, already.

"Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:

"Mike Parker" <aldacron71 yahoo.com> 
??????:e8lg7q$2o42$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:

 In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java. 
 Sure, D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if 
 there were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that 
 problem in just a few weeks). ;)

 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part 
 in the decision of a feature.

 Ah, so that's what you're after with this question - another platform for 
 you to spout off about how D should be open source, as you have 
 (repeatedly) in the past. Drop it, already.

Now, it's looks like that make D open source totally, more harder than make 
D success. 

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Mike Parker wrote:
<snip>
 Ah, so that's what you're after with this question - another platform 
 for you to spout off about how D should be open source, as you have 
 (repeatedly) in the past. Drop it, already.

What does it mean for a _language_ to be open source, exactly?

Stewart.

pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e90ai5$26va$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
Mike Parker wrote:
<snip>
 Ah, so that's what you're after with this question - another platform 
 for you to spout off about how D should be open source, as you have 
 (repeatedly) in the past. Drop it, already.

What does it mean for a _language_ to be open source, exactly?

Stewart.

Heh.. good point.

To hazard a guess, I'd say that a language would be open in spirit if the
specification is available without restriction, and any implementation of that
specification (aside from the reference implementation) is unencumbered by any
patents or license restrictions.

But to call it 'open _source_' is kind of a misnomer. ;)

- EricAnderton at yahoo

Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Mike Parker wrote:
 <snip>
 Ah, so that's what you're after with this question - another platform 
 for you to spout off about how D should be open source, as you have 
 (repeatedly) in the past. Drop it, already.

 
 What does it mean for a _language_ to be open source, exactly?
 
 Stewart.

Heh, well. In this context 'D' means 'DMD' - including the back end. He 
has preached about it before. I have gotten the impression that 'D' has 
come to be synonymous with DMD in most conversations, just as 'Java' has 
become with the JDK.

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

Mike Parker wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Mike Parker wrote:
 <snip>
 Ah, so that's what you're after with this question - another platform 
 for you to spout off about how D should be open source, as you have 
 (repeatedly) in the past. Drop it, already.

 What does it mean for a _language_ to be open source, exactly?

 Stewart.

 
 Heh, well. In this context 'D' means 'DMD' - including the back end. He 
 has preached about it before. I have gotten the impression that 'D' has 
 come to be synonymous with DMD in most conversations, just as 'Java' has 
 become with the JDK.

D meaning DMD can't be the case since the DMD compiler is most 
definitely NOT open source.  Parts of it are licensed for use in an open 
way, but not all of it.

Later,
Brad

Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:

Brad Roberts wrote:
 
 D meaning DMD can't be the case since the DMD compiler is most 
 definitely NOT open source.  Parts of it are licensed for use in an open 
 way, but not all of it.

Does that really matter? Why so pedantic? In a lot of conversations you 
could substitute 'DMD' in place of 'D' and it makes sense. I don't care 
if it's open source or not. Java wasn't for a long time (though it kind 
of is now), but it still didn't matter to people who said 'Java' when 
they meant 'JDK'. I'm not saying I agree with it, that it's right, 
wrong, or anything. All that matters is what's in someone's head when 
they type 'D'. Whether you agree with it or not doesn't make it untrue.

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Mike Parker wrote:
 Brad Roberts wrote:
 D meaning DMD can't be the case since the DMD compiler is most 
 definitely NOT open source.  Parts of it are licensed for use in an 
 open way, but not all of it.

 
 Does that really matter? Why so pedantic? In a lot of conversations you 
 could substitute 'DMD' in place of 'D' and it makes sense. I don't care 
 if it's open source or not. Java wasn't for a long time (though it kind 
 of is now), but it still didn't matter to people who said 'Java' when 
 they meant 'JDK'. I'm not saying I agree with it, that it's right, 
 wrong, or anything. All that matters is what's in someone's head when 
 they type 'D'. Whether you agree with it or not doesn't make it untrue.

I should also point out that David Friedman has just updated GDC to be 
equivalent to DMD, so there is a fully, 100% open source D implementation.

Brad Anderson <brad dsource.org> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:
 "Justin C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com> 
 ??????:e8kqf9$1hri$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> ??????:optcaubjpw23k2f5 nrage...
 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and should 
 be fixed before 1.0?"
 If so.. what's your opinion?

 Regan

 No, may be something beyond the language itself.

 Like the power of negative thinking?

 In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java. Sure, 
 D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if there 
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that problem 
 in just a few weeks). ;)

 
 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part in 
 the decision of a feature.

So Boris,

I take this comment to mean you question jcc7's contribution to the D world.
And yet all it says to me is that you are wallowing about in the abyss of
ignorance, having been mercifully spared the ravages of intelligence.

Let's look at the stats:

                jcc7                     boris

First Post    Nov. 2002                April 2006


  NG's          1058                      35
  dsource        442                       3

Projects       core32                     any?
               dsource tutorials
               wiki4d
               d2html

Skills         info bloodhound         hollow bitching in the NG

Frankly I'm surprised that I replied to your bullshit post (twice), as I
usually leave garbage like this alone.  Others here should too, but we're
sensitive and proud of our work on D.  And we don't need you questioning one
of our own.  We freely admit there are things wrong with D and talk about them
a lot here in the NG.  Please read the posts from before you started posting
for many answers to your question and cut down on the noise in here.

In summary, shut the fuck up.

BA

"Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:

"Brad Anderson" <brad dsource.org> ??????:e8lo9m$aie$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Justin C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com>
 ??????:e8kqf9$1hri$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> ??????:optcaubjpw23k2f5 nrage...
 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and should
 be fixed before 1.0?"
 If so.. what's your opinion?

 Regan

 No, may be something beyond the language itself.

 Like the power of negative thinking?

 In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java. 
 Sure,
 D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if there
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that 
 problem
 in just a few weeks). ;)

 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part 
 in
 the decision of a feature.

 So Boris,

 I take this comment to mean you question jcc7's contribution to the D 
 world.

Where can you got this result?
                                                                             
                            (but if there
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that 
 problem
 in just a few weeks). ;)



 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part 
 in
 the decision of a feature.


Please put your eyes close to the screen.

Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:

 
 "Brad Anderson" <brad dsource.org>
 ??????:e8lo9m$aie$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Justin C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com>
 ??????:e8kqf9$1hri$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> ??????:optcaubjpw23k2f5 nrage...
 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and
 should be fixed before 1.0?"
 If so.. what's your opinion?

 Regan

 No, may be something beyond the language itself.

 Like the power of negative thinking?

 In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java.
 Sure,
 D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if there
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that
 problem
 in just a few weeks). ;)

 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part
 in
 the decision of a feature.

 So Boris,

 I take this comment to mean you question jcc7's contribution to the D
 world.

 
 Where can you got this result?
                                                                              

It might be your English, but it certainly was what I thought you said too.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 05:59:19 +1000, Lars Ivar Igesund  
<larsivar igesund.net> wrote:

 Boris Wang wrote:

 "Brad Anderson" <brad dsource.org>
 ??????:e8lo9m$aie$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Justin C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com>
 ??????:e8kqf9$1hri$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> ??????:optcaubjpw23k2f5 nrage...
 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and
 should be fixed before 1.0?"
 If so.. what's your opinion?

 Regan

 No, may be something beyond the language itself.

 Like the power of negative thinking?

 In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java.
 Sure,
 D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if  
 there
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that
 problem
 in just a few weeks). ;)

 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take  
 part
 in
 the decision of a feature.

 So Boris,

 I take this comment to mean you question jcc7's contribution to the D
 world.

 Where can you got this result?

 It might be your English, but it certainly was what I thought you said  
 too.

I took it mean...

"Hmmm... maybe. However, other than Walter, can anyone make a patch for D,  
or can anyone take part in the decision to implement, reject or design a  
feature?"



-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:

Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 05:59:19 +1000, Lars Ivar Igesund  
 <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:
 
 Boris Wang wrote:

 "Brad Anderson" <brad dsource.org>
 ??????:e8lo9m$aie$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Boris Wang wrote:

 "Justin C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com>
 ??????:e8kqf9$1hri$1 digitaldaemon.com...





[...]
 So Boris,

 I take this comment to mean you question jcc7's contribution to the D
 world.


 Where can you got this result?

 It might be your English, but it certainly was what I thought you 
 said  too.

 
 
 I took it mean...
 
 "Hmmm... maybe. However, other than Walter, can anyone make a patch for 
 D,  or can anyone take part in the decision to implement, reject or 
 design a  feature?"
 
 
 

Just out of curiosity, how did jcc7 get brought up in the first place?

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"BCS" <BCS pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:e8ms9s$1hcb$5 digitaldaemon.com...

 Just out of curiosity, how did jcc7 get brought up in the first place?

Because Boris replied to Justin's (jcc7's) post. 

Justin C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "BCS" <BCS pathlink.com> wrote in message 
 news:e8ms9s$1hcb$5 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 Just out of curiosity, how did jcc7 get brought up in the first place?

 
 Because Boris replied to Justin's (jcc7's) post. 

True, but I replied to Boris's post first. So it's my fault that I'm 
part of the discussion. ;)

Honestly, I'm still not sure what Boris's reply had to do with what I 
posted. I just saw it as a non-sequitur.

-- 
jcc7

BCS <BCS_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e8si12$2t18$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Justin C Calvarese says...
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "BCS" <BCS pathlink.com> wrote in message 
 Just out of curiosity, how did jcc7 get brought up in the first place?

 
 Because Boris replied to Justin's (jcc7's) post. 


[...]
jcc7

OK, Justin is jcc7. His by line must have gotten dropped in all the editing.

"Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:

Thank you put right what i got wrong.


"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward>
дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:op.tccedhvz6b8z09 ginger.vic.bigpond.net.au...
 On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 05:59:19 +1000, Lars Ivar Igesund 
 <larsivar igesund.net> wrote:

 Boris Wang wrote:

 "Brad Anderson" <brad dsource.org>
 ??????:e8lo9m$aie$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Justin C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com>
 ??????:e8kqf9$1hri$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> ??????:optcaubjpw23k2f5 nrage...
 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and
 should be fixed before 1.0?"
 If so.. what's your opinion?

 Regan

 No, may be something beyond the language itself.

 Like the power of negative thinking?

 In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java.
 Sure,
 D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if 
 there
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that
 problem
 in just a few weeks). ;)

 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take 
 part
 in
 the decision of a feature.

 So Boris,

 I take this comment to mean you question jcc7's contribution to the D
 world.

 Where can you got this result?

 It might be your English, but it certainly was what I thought you said 
 too.

 I took it mean...

 "Hmmm... maybe. However, other than Walter, can anyone make a patch for D, 
 or can anyone take part in the decision to implement, reject or design a 
 feature?"



 -- 
 Derek Parnell
 Melbourne, Australia 

"Boris Wang" <nano.kago hotmail.com> writes:

I'm sorry. I should say:
    first of all, we can make patch for D, or we can take part in
    the decision of a feature

"Brad Anderson" <brad dsource.org> ??????:e8lo9m$aie$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Justin C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com>
 ??????:e8kqf9$1hri$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Boris Wang wrote:
 "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> ??????:optcaubjpw23k2f5 nrage...
 Is this your way of asking "what part of D most bothers you and should
 be fixed before 1.0?"
 If so.. what's your opinion?

 Regan

 No, may be something beyond the language itself.

 Like the power of negative thinking?

 In my thinking, D should already be more popular than C++ and Java. 
 Sure,
 D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if there
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that 
 problem
 in just a few weeks). ;)

 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part 
 in
 the decision of a feature.

 So Boris,

 I take this comment to mean you question jcc7's contribution to the D 
 world.
 And yet all it says to me is that you are wallowing about in the abyss of
 ignorance, having been mercifully spared the ravages of intelligence.

 Let's look at the stats:

                jcc7                     boris

 First Post    Nov. 2002                April 2006


  NG's          1058                      35
  dsource        442                       3

 Projects       core32                     any?
               dsource tutorials
               wiki4d
               d2html

 Skills         info bloodhound         hollow bitching in the NG

 Frankly I'm surprised that I replied to your bullshit post (twice), as I
 usually leave garbage like this alone.  Others here should too, but we're
 sensitive and proud of our work on D.  And we don't need you questioning 
 one
 of our own.  We freely admit there are things wrong with D and talk about 
 them
 a lot here in the NG.  Please read the posts from before you started 
 posting
 for many answers to your question and cut down on the noise in here.

 In summary, shut the fuck up.

 BA


 

Brad Anderson <brad dsource.org> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:
 Sure,
 D could benefit from having more cool libraries available (but if there
 were a few thousand more fans of D out there it, we could fix that 
 problem
 in just a few weeks). ;)

 Hmm,may be, first of all, you can make patch for D, or you can take part 
 in
 the decision of a feature.

 I'm sorry. I should say:
     first of all, we can make patch for D, or we can take part in
     the decision of a feature

Wow, I really don't understand you.

You're saying that we should make and/or offer patches for D or discuss new
features so D can advance?  Meaning, before the thousands of fans that jcc7
talks about show up?  i.e. do something now instead of waiting for the masses.
 That is actually a constructive thought.  But it's what a lot of people are
already doing and have been doing for quite a while.

It sounded to me like you were asking jcc7 to step up and do something.  He
already has.  If I was mistaken, I'll just retract the harsh words.  But it
doesn't get you off the hook.  Start contributing to something that helps D,
and do it soon.

BA

"Andrew Fedoniouk" <news terrainformatica.com> writes:

IMO of course,

Minimalistic D (v.1.0) should appear year ago or so (btw: it was perfect 
time for D on the market).
As far as I remember at that time when I started doing Harmonia D was just 
good enough for v.1.0 (compact and clean)

All new features appeared after ( inner classes and further ) a) did not 
change picture in principle, b) did not expand
feature set dramatically, c) created impression of instability.

One year of D design more and it will be dead. Our beliefs in D do not 
matter here.
Software market laws and psychology are that killers.

To D with love,

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainfromatica.com

Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
 IMO of course,
 
 Minimalistic D (v.1.0) should appear year ago or so (btw: it was perfect 
 time for D on the market).
 As far as I remember at that time when I started doing Harmonia D was just 
 good enough for v.1.0 (compact and clean)
 
 All new features appeared after ( inner classes and further ) a) did not 
 change picture in principle, b) did not expand
 feature set dramatically, c) created impression of instability.
 
 One year of D design more and it will be dead. Our beliefs in D do not 
 matter here.
 Software market laws and psychology are that killers.
 

IMO, in order for D to "die", there has to be something that would 
supplant it, because I don't think the market for a "better than C & 
cleaner than C++" statically compiled language has died. I'm not aware 
of any language like that out there anyhow, certainly not in this stage 
of development.

That said there are some frustrations recently. What is frustrating me 
the most is this 'immutable as default' thing and the lack of any 
response from Walter on the issue. This would truly be a way to 

Walter has spoken positively about it recently in other public news 
groups, yet he won't even join the discussion here. I mean, if it 
defeats one of the language goals (for instance, if it makes a D 
compiler harder to implement than a C++ compiler) then that's all he'd 
have to say and that would be good enough for me.

Perhaps Walter is completely heads-down right now trying to take care of 
the bug list so he feels comfortable releasing v1.0. The problem with 
that is that I'm getting the feeling that the language spec. itself may 
not be good enough to be the next killer language in the C lineage. 
Something like 'const by default' would at least be worth a try in this 
regard.

Don't get me wrong - D is absolutely great incrementally (one of the 
goals), but IMHO there probably will have to be a major differentiator 
for it to really catch fire.

- Dave

 To D with love,
 
 Andrew Fedoniouk.
 http://terrainfromatica.com
 

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Dave wrote:
 Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
 IMO of course,

 Minimalistic D (v.1.0) should appear year ago or so (btw: it was 
 perfect time for D on the market).
 As far as I remember at that time when I started doing Harmonia D was 
 just good enough for v.1.0 (compact and clean)

 All new features appeared after ( inner classes and further ) a) did 
 not change picture in principle, b) did not expand
 feature set dramatically, c) created impression of instability.

 One year of D design more and it will be dead. Our beliefs in D do not 
 matter here.
 Software market laws and psychology are that killers.

 
 IMO, in order for D to "die", there has to be something that would 
 supplant it, because I don't think the market for a "better than C & 
 cleaner than C++" statically compiled language has died. I'm not aware 
 of any language like that out there anyhow, certainly not in this stage 
 of development.

However, if D stays in beta indefinitely, it might as well not exist.

 That said there are some frustrations recently. What is frustrating me 
 the most is this 'immutable as default' thing and the lack of any 
 response from Walter on the issue. This would truly be a way to 

 Walter has spoken positively about it recently in other public news 
 groups, yet he won't even join the discussion here. I mean, if it 
 defeats one of the language goals (for instance, if it makes a D 
 compiler harder to implement than a C++ compiler) then that's all he'd 
 have to say and that would be good enough for me.

IMHO, the lack of details about 1.0 is the biggest problem. In 
particular, the uncertainty about the level of support we can expect for 
implicit function template instantiation makes template library 
development difficult.

 Perhaps Walter is completely heads-down right now trying to take care of 
 the bug list so he feels comfortable releasing v1.0. The problem with 
 that is that I'm getting the feeling that the language spec. itself may 
 not be good enough to be the next killer language in the C lineage. 
 Something like 'const by default' would at least be worth a try in this 
 regard.
 
 Don't get me wrong - D is absolutely great incrementally (one of the 
 goals), but IMHO there probably will have to be a major differentiator 
 for it to really catch fire.

It's all in the libraries. D is a fantastic language to write libraries 
for. That's where you get the benefit from all the incremental 
improvements. If const-by-default enables the creation of much better 
libraries, then it's worth the pain. If it doesn't, don't do it.
Ruby had this huge surge in popularity not because of the language, but 
because of the library Ruby On Rails. Developing good libraries requires 
a stable language, and we don't have that right now. The 
protection/module system seems to be completely broken.

Tesuji <Tesuji_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e8l426$26o3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Don Clugston says...
It's all in the libraries. D is a fantastic language to write libraries 
for. That's where you get the benefit from all the incremental 
improvements. If const-by-default enables the creation of much better 
libraries, then it's worth the pain. If it doesn't, don't do it.
Ruby had this huge surge in popularity not because of the language, but 
because of the library Ruby On Rails. Developing good libraries requires 
a stable language, and we don't have that right now. The 
protection/module system seems to be completely broken.

Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like reference
type is needed before any container library (like DTL) can be effectively
written. Currently D is lacking in this area where C++ is strongest. relying
solely on built-in array / hash is hardly the solution.

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Tesuji wrote:
 In article <e8l426$26o3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Don Clugston says...
 It's all in the libraries. D is a fantastic language to write libraries 
 for. That's where you get the benefit from all the incremental 
 improvements. If const-by-default enables the creation of much better 
 libraries, then it's worth the pain. If it doesn't, don't do it.
 Ruby had this huge surge in popularity not because of the language, but 
 because of the library Ruby On Rails. Developing good libraries requires 
 a stable language, and we don't have that right now. The 
 protection/module system seems to be completely broken.

 
 Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like reference
 type is needed before any container library (like DTL) can be effectively
 written. Currently D is lacking in this area where C++ is strongest. relying
 solely on built-in array / hash is hardly the solution.

I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective 
libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming techniques 
or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and debugging.

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:22:23 +1000, Walter Bright  
<newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Tesuji wrote:
 In article <e8l426$26o3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Don Clugston says...
 It's all in the libraries. D is a fantastic language to write  
 libraries for. That's where you get the benefit from all the  
 incremental improvements. If const-by-default enables the creation of  
 much better libraries, then it's worth the pain. If it doesn't, don't  
 do it.
 Ruby had this huge surge in popularity not because of the language,  
 but because of the library Ruby On Rails. Developing good libraries  
 requires a stable language, and we don't have that right now. The  
 protection/module system seems to be completely broken.

  Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like  
 reference
 type is needed before any container library (like DTL) can be  
 effectively
 written. Currently D is lacking in this area where C++ is strongest.  
 relying
 solely on built-in array / hash is hardly the solution.

 I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective  
 libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming techniques  
 or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and debugging.

Agreed, plus reliablility. A compiler-detected attempt to break a  
read-only contract increases reliability.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Tesuji wrote:
 Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like 
 reference
 type is needed before any container library (like DTL) can be effectively
 written. Currently D is lacking in this area where C++ is strongest. 
 relying
 solely on built-in array / hash is hardly the solution.

 
 I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective 
 libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming techniques 
 or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and debugging.

I think this is largely useful for self-documenting code and for 
catching mistakes that could be extremely difficult to track down 
through debugging.  As you say, nothing actually *requires* const support.


Sean

David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Tesuji wrote:
 
 In article <e8l426$26o3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Don Clugston says...

 It's all in the libraries. D is a fantastic language to write 
 libraries for. That's where you get the benefit from all the 
 incremental improvements. If const-by-default enables the creation of 
 much better libraries, then it's worth the pain. If it doesn't, don't 
 do it.
 Ruby had this huge surge in popularity not because of the language, 
 but because of the library Ruby On Rails. Developing good libraries 
 requires a stable language, and we don't have that right now. The 
 protection/module system seems to be completely broken.


 Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like 
 reference
 type is needed before any container library (like DTL) can be effectively
 written. Currently D is lacking in this area where C++ is strongest. 
 relying
 solely on built-in array / hash is hardly the solution.

 
 
 I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective 
 libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming techniques 
 or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and debugging.

I feel the same.  Libraries either
a) Are passed allocated objects, in which they are allowed to manipulate 
them.  No need for const there(that I can see).

b) Allocate and return objects/data.  Definitely no need for const there.

Java has tons of libraries, as does Ruby, and Perl, and C, and tons of 
other libraries without const.  No offenses intended, this is bordering 
on an obsession.

With garbage collection, I just don't see the HUGE benefits of const....
-DavidM

BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:

David Medlock wrote:
 
 
 I feel the same.  Libraries either
 a) Are passed allocated objects, in which they are allowed to manipulate 
 them.  No need for const there(that I can see).
 
 b) Allocate and return objects/data.  Definitely no need for const there.
 

or
c) Are passed allocated objects, which they are *NOT* allowed to manipulate.

d) Allocate and return objects/data that shouldn't be manipulated by the 
user.

kris <foo bar.com> writes:

David Medlock wrote:
 No offenses intended, this is bordering
 on an obsession.

No offence intended, but your zip is down

<g>

 With garbage collection, I just don't see the HUGE benefits of const....

And "640KB of RAM should be enough for anyone"

What does "HUGE" mean to you, anyway? Perhaps you'd care to spell out 
those benefits you know of, so we can perhaps quantify your use of that 
adjective?

David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:

"c) Are passed allocated objects, which they are *NOT* allowed to 
manipulate."

These are called interfaces, and are quite do-able in D.

"d) Allocate and return objects/data that shouldn't be manipulated by 
the user."

Such as what?  Nothing in D stops the two cases above.


kris wrote:

 David Medlock wrote:
 
 No offenses intended, this is bordering
 on an obsession.

 
 
 No offence intended, but your zip is down
 
 <g>
 
 With garbage collection, I just don't see the HUGE benefits of const....

 
 
 And "640KB of RAM should be enough for anyone"

Not having const is not a limitation- its a semantic addition.  Whether 
its a feature depends on what you are trying to do.

 
 What does "HUGE" mean to you, anyway? Perhaps you'd care to spell out 
 those benefits you know of, so we can perhaps quantify your use of that 
 adjective?

HUGE meaning my workflow/productivity increased.  The computers work for 
us, not the other way around.  If it doesn't make me write programs 
faster or better, it isn't a feature.

The advantages always boil down to one of:
1. Multithreaded code - does not help unless you get rid of pointers and 
delegates!
2. Performance   - much better potential than const in this area.
3. Ref counting  - popular in the 80s....pretty much proven useless for 
85 percent of real tasks, and its not thread safe.

Anything outside of those things...?

I know it has uses, but so does anything else.  The difference is 
whether the cost of acquiring it justifies it(C++ const I mean).

-DavidM

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

David Medlock wrote:
 "c) Are passed allocated objects, which they are *NOT* allowed to 
 manipulate."
 
 These are called interfaces, and are quite do-able in D.

This doesn't account for dynamic arrays, which are effectively passed by 
reference as well.
 
 "d) Allocate and return objects/data that shouldn't be manipulated by 
 the user."
 
 Such as what?  Nothing in D stops the two cases above.

     class C
     {
         char[] name() { return m_name; }
     private:
         char[] m_name;
     }

The convention is for the user to .dup the string if he intends to 
modify it, but this can be easy to forget, and tracking down a bug 
caused by this may be fairly time-consuming.  As far as I know, there's 
no way to expose a string reference with any degree of insurance that 
the data will not be altered.


Sean

kris <foo bar.com> writes:

David Medlock wrote:
[snip]
 With garbage collection, I just don't see the HUGE benefits of const....



 And "640KB of RAM should be enough for anyone"

 
 
 Not having const is not a limitation- its a semantic addition.  Whether 
 its a feature depends on what you are trying to do.

Au contraire, my friend ~ it can quickly become a /limitation/ on how 
robust one's code actally is. I understand that is not important to some 
people.

[snip]
 HUGE meaning my workflow/productivity increased.  The computers work for 
 us, not the other way around.  If it doesn't make me write programs 
 faster or better, it isn't a feature.

Sure makes debugging a lot simpler, faster, and more deterministic. And 
has similar benefits for long-term maintenance. Those who have limited 
experience with large or long-term projects would have little use for 
this, so I agree with your assessment from that perspective. However, it 
is exactly those large projects which stand to benefit from the use of D 
in one way or another (over C & C++). I sure hope D isn't intended just 
for quick & dirty development?

[snip]
 I know it has uses, but so does anything else.  The difference is 
 whether the cost of acquiring it justifies it(C++ const I mean).

I'm pretty certain nobody here would suggest acquiring C++ const ! :)

BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:

David Medlock wrote:
 c) Are passed allocated objects, which they are *NOT* allowed to 

 manipulate."
 
 These are called interfaces, and are quite do-able in D.
 

interface fun
{
	int look();
}

interface fig : fun
{
	void touch(int);
}

interface foo : fig
{
	void other();
}

foo GetTouch();
foo GetNoTouch();

Now how do you keep people from not calling touch on an instance of foo 
returned from GetNoTouch()? I'm sure it can be done with some 
rearranging, but why make the solution so complicated?

for that matter what about an int* that shouldn't be modified? Objects 
are not the only ref type in D.

 d) Allocate and return objects/data that shouldn't be manipulated by 

 the user."
 
 Such as what?  Nothing in D stops the two cases above.
 
 

[...]
 
 Not having const is not a limitation- its a semantic addition.  Whether 
 its a feature depends on what you are trying to do.
 

And anything that can be done with a computer can be done in asm (or a 
Turing machine) but thats not the point.

 What does "HUGE" mean to you, anyway? Perhaps you'd care to spell out 
 those benefits you know of, so we can perhaps quantify your use of 
 that adjective?

 
 
 HUGE meaning my workflow/productivity increased.  The computers work for 
 us, not the other way around.  If it doesn't make me write programs 
 faster or better, it isn't a feature.
 

The addition of the concept of const _should_ allow the compiler to find 
errors of something changing something it shouldn't. This should 
decrease the occurrence of a whole class of bugs (that people seem to be 
worried about) and as a result let people spend more time thinking and 
doing other things. The only cost that I can see of adding const is a 
butch of compile time errors (that are easy to fix compared to run time 
errors) and the requirement that code be structured so that code that 
needs to changes stuff has mutable references to it. This would, I 
expect, requirer just a much thinking as the program would without 
const, but would requirer the thinking to be explicitly stated in a way 
the the compiler can check to some extent.

 The advantages always boil down to one of:
 1. Multithreaded code - does not help unless you get rid of pointers and 
 delegates!
 2. Performance   - much better potential than const in this area.
 3. Ref counting  - popular in the 80s....pretty much proven useless for 
 85 percent of real tasks, and its not thread safe.
 
 Anything outside of those things...?

"I can safely assume that passing this reference to this function won't 
get it changed."

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

David Medlock wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Tesuji wrote:

 In article <e8l426$26o3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Don Clugston says...

 It's all in the libraries. D is a fantastic language to write 
 libraries for. That's where you get the benefit from all the 
 incremental improvements. If const-by-default enables the creation 
 of much better libraries, then it's worth the pain. If it doesn't, 
 don't do it.
 Ruby had this huge surge in popularity not because of the language, 
 but because of the library Ruby On Rails. Developing good libraries 
 requires a stable language, and we don't have that right now. The 
 protection/module system seems to be completely broken.


 Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like 
 reference
 type is needed before any container library (like DTL) can be 
 effectively
 written. Currently D is lacking in this area where C++ is strongest. 
 relying
 solely on built-in array / hash is hardly the solution.


 I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective 
 libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming techniques 
 or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and debugging.

 
 I feel the same.  Libraries either
 a) Are passed allocated objects, in which they are allowed to manipulate 
 them.  No need for const there(that I can see).
 
 b) Allocate and return objects/data.  Definitely no need for const there.
 
 Java has tons of libraries, as does Ruby, and Perl, and C, and tons of 
 other libraries without const.  No offenses intended, this is bordering 
 on an obsession.
 
 With garbage collection, I just don't see the HUGE benefits of const....
 -DavidM

This seems to only include 'core' type libraries.  Application level 
libraries often take in business level objects that often should be for 
'looking but not touching'.  Even intrinsic types, like strings, fall 
squarely into that bucket.

I don't understand the argument against having the concept of const-ness 
  in a language.  That other languages don't have the concept doesn't 
make the concept irrelevant.  I can see there being an interesting 
debate over it being the default state of objects.  I'm personally 
_very_ interested in trying default const for a few months to see how it 
feels.

If it's not obvious, I'm squarely in the camp of language/contractually 
enforced const is good and I want it.

Later,
Brad

David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:

Brad Roberts wrote:

 David Medlock wrote:
 
 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tesuji wrote:

 In article <e8l426$26o3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Don Clugston says...

 It's all in the libraries. D is a fantastic language to write 
 libraries for. That's where you get the benefit from all the 
 incremental improvements. If const-by-default enables the creation 
 of much better libraries, then it's worth the pain. If it doesn't, 
 don't do it.
 Ruby had this huge surge in popularity not because of the language, 
 but because of the library Ruby On Rails. Developing good libraries 
 requires a stable language, and we don't have that right now. The 
 protection/module system seems to be completely broken.



 Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like 
 reference
 type is needed before any container library (like DTL) can be 
 effectively
 written. Currently D is lacking in this area where C++ is strongest. 
 relying
 solely on built-in array / hash is hardly the solution.



 I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective 
 libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming 
 techniques or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and 
 debugging.


 I feel the same.  Libraries either
 a) Are passed allocated objects, in which they are allowed to 
 manipulate them.  No need for const there(that I can see).

 b) Allocate and return objects/data.  Definitely no need for const there.

 Java has tons of libraries, as does Ruby, and Perl, and C, and tons of 
 other libraries without const.  No offenses intended, this is 
 bordering on an obsession.

 With garbage collection, I just don't see the HUGE benefits of const....
 -DavidM

 
 
 This seems to only include 'core' type libraries.  Application level 
 libraries often take in business level objects that often should be for 
 'looking but not touching'.  Even intrinsic types, like strings, fall 
 squarely into that bucket.
 
 I don't understand the argument against having the concept of const-ness 
  in a language.  That other languages don't have the concept doesn't 
 make the concept irrelevant.  I can see there being an interesting 
 debate over it being the default state of objects.  I'm personally 
 _very_ interested in trying default const for a few months to see how it 
 feels.
 
 If it's not obvious, I'm squarely in the camp of language/contractually 
 enforced const is good and I want it.
 
 Later,
 Brad

I am not *against* it, I just disagree with people who say its a feature 
D cannot succeed/compete without.

I am all for the concept, just not the C++ idea of it.


For a better one how about the _let_ construct in ML languages:

let var = expression in <statements> end

During <statements> the var cannot be modified and the compiler checks 
this.  Note this is *single assignment*, not exactly the same thing as 
the type modifier in C++.

-David

BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:

David Medlock wrote:
 
 
 I am not *against* it, I just disagree with people who say its a feature 
 D cannot succeed/compete without.
 
 I am all for the concept, just not the C++ idea of it.
 
 
 For a better one how about the _let_ construct in ML languages:
 
 let var = expression in <statements> end
 
 During <statements> the var cannot be modified and the compiler checks 
 this.  Note this is *single assignment*, not exactly the same thing as 
 the type modifier in C++.
 
 -David

How would this be used to ensure immutability with references passed to 
functions? ML doesn't seem to have reference types but D does so the 
implications need to be considered. There must be some sort of assertion 
that a function won't modify something or it becomes meaningless. This 
implies a const type attribute of function parameters.

Reference types are not going to go away so we need some way to deal 
with them.

Juan Jose Comellas <jcomellas gmail.com> writes:

An that's why Java forces you to copy or clone objects all the time, making
it consume tons of memory. And this concept of immutable interfaces is so
ingrained in the JDK's interface that there's not much you can do about it
even if you want to make the effort of avoiding unnecessary copies.


David Medlock wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 Tesuji wrote:


[...]
 I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective
 libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming techniques
 or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and debugging.

 
 I feel the same.  Libraries either
 a) Are passed allocated objects, in which they are allowed to manipulate
 them.  No need for const there(that I can see).
 
 b) Allocate and return objects/data.  Definitely no need for const there.
 
 Java has tons of libraries, as does Ruby, and Perl, and C, and tons of
 other libraries without const.  No offenses intended, this is bordering
 on an obsession.
 
 With garbage collection, I just don't see the HUGE benefits of const....
 -DavidM

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:

David Medlock wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Tesuji wrote:

 In article <e8l426$26o3$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Don Clugston says...

 It's all in the libraries. D is a fantastic language to write 
 libraries for. That's where you get the benefit from all the 
 incremental improvements. If const-by-default enables the creation 
 of much better libraries, then it's worth the pain. If it doesn't, 
 don't do it.
 Ruby had this huge surge in popularity not because of the language, 
 but because of the library Ruby On Rails. Developing good libraries 
 requires a stable language, and we don't have that right now. The 
 protection/module system seems to be completely broken.


 Agreed, in addition I also believe that a const-by-default C++ like 
 reference
 type is needed before any container library (like DTL) can be 
 effectively
 written. Currently D is lacking in this area where C++ is strongest. 
 relying
 solely on built-in array / hash is hardly the solution.


 I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective 
 libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming techniques 
 or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and debugging.

 
 I feel the same.  Libraries either
 a) Are passed allocated objects, in which they are allowed to manipulate 
 them.  No need for const there(that I can see).
 
 b) Allocate and return objects/data.  Definitely no need for const there.
 
 Java has tons of libraries, as does Ruby, and Perl, and C, and tons of 
 other libraries without const.  No offenses intended, this is bordering 
 on an obsession.
 
 With garbage collection, I just don't see the HUGE benefits of const....
 -DavidM

I subscribe to all the other posts made in reply to this one. I'll just add:

 Java has tons of libraries, as does Ruby, and Perl, and C, and tons of
 other libraries without const.  No offenses intended, this is bordering
 on an obsession.

C is not that much of a good language for mid and large scale projects. 
Or at least it is not known to have a good library. I don't know about 
Perl and Ruby, but in Java, the String class (one of the types where 
constness is more important) is immutable by nature.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 IMHO, the lack of details about 1.0 is the biggest problem. In 
 particular, the uncertainty about the level of support we can expect for 
 implicit function template instantiation makes template library 
 development difficult.

Right now, the lack of partial specialization support in the ifti in D 
is a bug. It is intended that it work just like in C++.

So the question I have is, does D 1.0 have to be bug-free? I don't think 
  so.

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 IMHO, the lack of details about 1.0 is the biggest problem. In 
 particular, the uncertainty about the level of support we can expect 
 for implicit function template instantiation makes template library 
 development difficult.

 
 Right now, the lack of partial specialization support in the ifti in D 
 is a bug. It is intended that it work just like in C++.

Fantastic! That's very helpful.

 
 So the question I have is, does D 1.0 have to be bug-free? I don't think 
  so.

No, it doesn't. But for developing libraries, when there are bugs like 
that with serious implications for library design, you have to make a 
decision. If it's a bug that won't ever be fixed in 1.0, it's worth 
spending a lot of time developing a workaround. But, if it's a 
limitation that's likely to disappear in the next few compiler releases, 
you're wasting your time. Major bugs actually shape the language; in the 
C++ world, Visual C++ 6.0 had so many template bugs that it was a 
language all of its own. So anything you can tell us about what your 
current vision of 1.0 is, will be helpful.

The reality, of course, is that D library writers have never been able 
to keep up with the pace of language change anyway. There's just not 
enough of us :-(.

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 So the question I have is, does D 1.0 have to be bug-free? I don't 
 think  so.

 
 No, it doesn't. But for developing libraries, when there are bugs like 
 that with serious implications for library design, you have to make a 
 decision. If it's a bug that won't ever be fixed in 1.0, it's worth 
 spending a lot of time developing a workaround. But, if it's a 
 limitation that's likely to disappear in the next few compiler releases, 
 you're wasting your time. Major bugs actually shape the language; in the 
 C++ world, Visual C++ 6.0 had so many template bugs that it was a 
 language all of its own. So anything you can tell us about what your 
 current vision of 1.0 is, will be helpful.

Exactly.  For ifti I've been operating under the assumption that it was 
intended to be like C++ and have simply been putting off any serious 
metaprogramming in D until the compiler matures a bit.  The 
clarification regarding aliases (that they aren't valid for referencing 
the result of an expression) was also quite valuable information.  About 
the only remaining issue for me is whether any other template features 
might be added, specifically:

* whether the template specialization mechanism will be extended to 
support type lists or 'is' expression logic

* whether D will gain a structured way to identify or specialize for 
static arrays (currently, specializing for T[] seems potentially not useful)

Hrm... that's all I can think of at the moment.


Sean

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Sean Kelly wrote:
 About 
 the only remaining issue for me is whether any other template features 
 might be added, specifically:
 
 * whether the template specialization mechanism will be extended to 
 support type lists or 'is' expression logic

Not for 1.0.

 * whether D will gain a structured way to identify or specialize for 
 static arrays (currently, specializing for T[] seems potentially not 
 useful)

Not for 1.0.

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Not for 1.0.

Thanks :-)

Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 About the only remaining issue for me is whether any other template 
 features might be added, specifically:

 * whether the template specialization mechanism will be extended to 
 support type lists or 'is' expression logic

 
 Not for 1.0.
 
 * whether D will gain a structured way to identify or specialize for 
 static arrays (currently, specializing for T[] seems potentially not 
 useful)

 
 Not for 1.0.

Oo.. k... how about:

* template function overloading
* fixes for mixin visibility rules

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/38389.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39130
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39320

?


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

leoandru <leoandru_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e8mgl5$1jnn$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tom S says...
Walter Bright wrote:
 Sean Kelly wrote:
 About the only remaining issue for me is whether any other template 
 features might be added, specifically:

 * whether the template specialization mechanism will be extended to 
 support type lists or 'is' expression logic

 
 Not for 1.0.
 
 * whether D will gain a structured way to identify or specialize for 
 static arrays (currently, specializing for T[] seems potentially not 
 useful)

 
 Not for 1.0.

Oo.. k... how about:

* template function overloading
* fixes for mixin visibility rules

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/38389.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39130
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39320

?


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

Yup. this was something I tried to do recently. It would be a real nice
addition.
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.learn/3819

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 
 So the question I have is, does D 1.0 have to be bug-free? I don't think 
  so.

No.  There's an obvious difference between compiler bugs and spec 
mutability.  As long as any outstanding questions (such as Don's) are 
clearly addressed with respect to their bug status, D as a language 
could go 1.0 as soon as a feature freeze occurs.


Sean

Mike Capp <mike.capp gmail.com> writes:

What a cheery topic.

In article <e8kp39$1fol$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
[...] I don't think the market for a "better than C & 
cleaner than C++" statically compiled language has died. I'm not aware 
of any language like that out there anyhow, certainly not in this stage 
of development.

Depending on what you're doing, some would say that languages like Eiffel, Ada
and Delphi qualify as "like that". (Ada '83 was painfully restrictive, but the
latest '05 version looks to be saner and has some interesting features - has
anyone played with it?)

Don't get me wrong - D is absolutely great incrementally (one of the 
goals), but IMHO there probably will have to be a major differentiator 
for it to really catch fire.

Agreed. C survives (and will continue to survive) as a portable assembler and as
the de facto lingua franca for native code. C++ survives (and will continue to
survive) though inertia; its total lack of ABI is such a train wreck that large
C++ codebases are very hard to migrate to anything else.

I suspect that over the next few years the big thing that's going to force
significant numbers of programmers to jump language is the need to take
advantage of heavily multicore CPUs. I'm not sure D is functional enough to hop
on that approaching bandwagon, so its window of opportunity may be quite narrow.

Lionello Lunesu <lio lunesu.remove.com> writes:

I'd have to agree with Andrew here. Why are new features being added 
when simple things like http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=111
do not work. There are probably more examples of this.

L.

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
 IMO of course,
 
 Minimalistic D (v.1.0) should appear year ago or so (btw: it was perfect 
 time for D on the market).
 As far as I remember at that time when I started doing Harmonia D was just 
 good enough for v.1.0 (compact and clean)
 
 All new features appeared after ( inner classes and further ) a) did not 
 change picture in principle, b) did not expand
 feature set dramatically, c) created impression of instability.
 
 One year of D design more and it will be dead. Our beliefs in D do not 
 matter here.
 Software market laws and psychology are that killers.
 
 To D with love,
 
 Andrew Fedoniouk.
 http://terrainfromatica.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Trevor Parscal <Trevor_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e8khb5$160j$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Boris Wang says...

I think there's a simular attitude from indie film makers who whine and complain
about new video cameras not being good enough and cheap enough. They say "this
new HD format isn't true HD" and "How come this camera isn't fully 24p?". But I
ask, what are these people holding out for a better camera to make? And while
they wait for the perfect camera to make a film, how much experience are they
gathering in film making to be used on their masterpiece? None...

If you wait around for the perfect equipment, you'll never make a movie. Fact.

When I first heard about D I was like a kid in a candy store. I learned it as
fast as I could, abandoned all use of a C++ compiler again, and converted
everything I ever wrote worth compiling imediately. I've been working on
ambitious projects in every bit of free time I can, and very often when I can't,
and as the language evolves, I feel greatful to be a part of the evolution.

If you wait around for the perfect language, you'll never make a program. Fact.

Enjoy the ride already Andrew! Harmonia was legit, and the "market" will always
ready for something as useful as D.

Life is good, eat some fruit!

Thanks,
Trevor Parscal

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Trevor Parscal wrote:
\\ lots of good stuff deleted, with which I mostly agree, too.

My, 2c:

A 1.0 is a 1.0, and the whole world knows it. There are warts, 
inconsistencies, omissions, etc. But a 1.0 out today is a lot better 
than a 1.0 out 2 years from now.

And it's true, the window for us doesn't stay open indefinitely!!!

If nothing else, then in time somebody will get fed up, and publish a 
language called Dip-off, which is just almost D, but with some 
hard-to-do things thrown out, and some Commercially Important stuff 
added (like working variable protection and module logic).

And they'll tout it all over the place, hyping it as Fully Ready, 
Complete, a No-Brainer Choice, -- and Everything D Should Have Been.

All lies, of course, but hey, that's life. And with those lies they get 
the venture capitalists interested, and with that money they hire 
professionals to write a decent manual, some fast-buck tomes for 
bookstores, and start giving away a crippled version while charging for 
the real compiler. (And of course, all this is targeted to Windows users 
only -- that's where the money is, and the people who are used to pony 
up even for taking a leak.)

And they hire sleazy pressure salespersons to go coerce some visible 
companies to publish Strategic Alliances with them. Paid "editorial" 
content everywhere praises the alliances, the new era, the firm, and 
sometimes even the language itself. The street wisdom becomes "Dip-off 
or drop off". Nobody can afford to not use it. And definitely nobody can 
afford to admit ignorance of it.

-- Meanwhile in a dark chamber the mad scientist has now a pergament 
complexion from sustained lack of outdoor light, and an increasingly 
tightening viscious circle of "I just have to fix this one tiny thing, 
before releasing!" and "I really ought to fix the library instead, but 
damn, I just noticed another itsy bug, gotta fix that like yesterday." 
and "I should actually write the docs, rewrite and review the spec, and 
write an introductory handbook. Damn! But not now, I'll do it next week, 
honest!" and "Just one more bug fix first, I swear!"



-- Back to Dip-off HQ: The PR guy is complaining to the CEO about 
customers becoming dissatisfied about the libraries. The seasoned VC who 
also is the chairman interrupts with "Naaw, not to worry. First of all, 
we only target the Windows World, where everyone is used to sub-par 
stuff, and second, we've got enough revenue to cover some serious 
library development. Actually we've already stolen folks from M$, Sun, 
Oracle and Google. And we still don't have to touch the second half of 
the Venture Capital!"

Next day customer support is telling the CEO that some folks are using 
real D for some of their own library development, and others are porting 
stuff to Linux with GDC. CEO decides to introduce subtle 
incompatibilities to thwart those smartbutts. Six months later Dip-off 
1.1 is released, this time with even more fanfare and BS. (Ehh I mean, 
Marketing.)

-- Meanwhile, the Original Disciples are growing fewer. Some get old and 
retire altogether, some take the pragmatic switch to the Commercially 
Usable Dip-off, of course with a bad conscience, some others are getting 
a bad attack of Cognitive Dissonance and they decide to move away from 
compiled languages altogether, this time for good. Others are torn 
between loyalty and their own bosses, who insist on you-know-which.

Dip-off Corp advertises Certification levels for the language, power 
workshops, personalised internet tutoring, hi-priority consulting, 
whole-department immersive 2-week courses in the Rockies, sponsor 
teen-age programming contests all over the world, show celebrities using 
it or bragging about cost savings and reliabilty, sell T-shirts, cups, 
frisbees, and badges with flashing micro leds.

A deal with McDonalds is announced. Every toddler who can cite at least 
20 keywords, or 200 library functions, will get a compiler license for 
half the price, and be included in a lottery boasting a 5-year old 
laptop for 10 winners. Old laptops because "Dip-off is so efficient!" 
The next generation genuinely feel Dip-off is like Coca-Cola, it simply 
is an integral part of our world.

15 years later we zoom to the stage at ACM SIGPLAN HOPL-V (a conference 
on the history of programming languages), where an old man shyly climbs 
up wile the audience ask each other, who is this guy, and the others say 
that he's one of the Great, right with Naur, Wirth, McCarthy, Steele, 
Kay, Moore, Ritchie, Stroustrup.

The old man waits till it's quiet, and then says in a thin voice "It's 
out." Then he stops and looks at everybody. There's a silence. The 
audience wonder if something happened, the old man is just looking at 
everybody in the auditorium. He seems perplexed, turning almost frightend.

The next day we go to the ACM web site, maybe they know what happened. 
Yes, the speaker had expected a huge reaction from the audience, for he 
had finally finished D 1.0.

Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:

Georg Wrede wrote:
 Trevor Parscal wrote:
 \\ lots of good stuff deleted, with which I mostly agree, too.
 
 My, 2c:
 
 A 1.0 is a 1.0, and the whole world knows it. There are warts, 
 inconsistencies, omissions, etc. But a 1.0 out today is a lot better 
 than a 1.0 out 2 years from now.
 
 And it's true, the window for us doesn't stay open indefinitely!!!
 
 If nothing else, then in time somebody will get fed up, and publish a 
 language called Dip-off, which is just almost D, but with some 
 hard-to-do things thrown out, and some Commercially Important stuff 
 added (like working variable protection and module logic).
 
 And they'll tout it all over the place, hyping it as Fully Ready, 
 Complete, a No-Brainer Choice, -- and Everything D Should Have Been.
 
 All lies, of course, but hey, that's life. And with those lies they get 
 the venture capitalists interested, and with that money they hire 
 professionals to write a decent manual, some fast-buck tomes for 
 bookstores, and start giving away a crippled version while charging for 
 the real compiler. (And of course, all this is targeted to Windows users 
 only -- that's where the money is, and the people who are used to pony 
 up even for taking a leak.)
 
 And they hire sleazy pressure salespersons to go coerce some visible 
 companies to publish Strategic Alliances with them. Paid "editorial" 
 content everywhere praises the alliances, the new era, the firm, and 
 sometimes even the language itself. The street wisdom becomes "Dip-off 
 or drop off". Nobody can afford to not use it. And definitely nobody can 
 afford to admit ignorance of it.
 
 -- Meanwhile in a dark chamber the mad scientist has now a pergament 
 complexion from sustained lack of outdoor light, and an increasingly 
 tightening viscious circle of "I just have to fix this one tiny thing, 
 before releasing!" and "I really ought to fix the library instead, but 
 damn, I just noticed another itsy bug, gotta fix that like yesterday." 
 and "I should actually write the docs, rewrite and review the spec, and 
 write an introductory handbook. Damn! But not now, I'll do it next week, 
 honest!" and "Just one more bug fix first, I swear!"
 

 
 -- Back to Dip-off HQ: The PR guy is complaining to the CEO about 
 customers becoming dissatisfied about the libraries. The seasoned VC who 
 also is the chairman interrupts with "Naaw, not to worry. First of all, 
 we only target the Windows World, where everyone is used to sub-par 
 stuff, and second, we've got enough revenue to cover some serious 
 library development. Actually we've already stolen folks from M$, Sun, 
 Oracle and Google. And we still don't have to touch the second half of 
 the Venture Capital!"
 
 Next day customer support is telling the CEO that some folks are using 
 real D for some of their own library development, and others are porting 
 stuff to Linux with GDC. CEO decides to introduce subtle 
 incompatibilities to thwart those smartbutts. Six months later Dip-off 
 1.1 is released, this time with even more fanfare and BS. (Ehh I mean, 
 Marketing.)
 
 -- Meanwhile, the Original Disciples are growing fewer. Some get old and 
 retire altogether, some take the pragmatic switch to the Commercially 
 Usable Dip-off, of course with a bad conscience, some others are getting 
 a bad attack of Cognitive Dissonance and they decide to move away from 
 compiled languages altogether, this time for good. Others are torn 
 between loyalty and their own bosses, who insist on you-know-which.
 
 Dip-off Corp advertises Certification levels for the language, power 
 workshops, personalised internet tutoring, hi-priority consulting, 
 whole-department immersive 2-week courses in the Rockies, sponsor 
 teen-age programming contests all over the world, show celebrities using 
 it or bragging about cost savings and reliabilty, sell T-shirts, cups, 
 frisbees, and badges with flashing micro leds.
 
 A deal with McDonalds is announced. Every toddler who can cite at least 
 20 keywords, or 200 library functions, will get a compiler license for 
 half the price, and be included in a lottery boasting a 5-year old 
 laptop for 10 winners. Old laptops because "Dip-off is so efficient!" 
 The next generation genuinely feel Dip-off is like Coca-Cola, it simply 
 is an integral part of our world.
 
 15 years later we zoom to the stage at ACM SIGPLAN HOPL-V (a conference 
 on the history of programming languages), where an old man shyly climbs 
 up wile the audience ask each other, who is this guy, and the others say 
 that he's one of the Great, right with Naur, Wirth, McCarthy, Steele, 
 Kay, Moore, Ritchie, Stroustrup.
 
 The old man waits till it's quiet, and then says in a thin voice "It's 
 out." Then he stops and looks at everybody. There's a silence. The 
 audience wonder if something happened, the old man is just looking at 
 everybody in the auditorium. He seems perplexed, turning almost frightend.
 
 The next day we go to the ACM web site, maybe they know what happened. 
 Yes, the speaker had expected a huge reaction from the audience, for he 
 had finally finished D 1.0.

*Standing Ovation*

-- 
Kyle Furlong // Physics Undergrad, UCSB

"D is going wherever the D community wants it to go." - Walter Bright

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
before 1.0.

So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not 
like D will stop undergoing improvements.

sai <sai_member pathlink.com> writes:

my vote




In article <e8n9mi$2flp$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
before 1.0.

So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not 
like D will stop undergoing improvements.

kris <foo bar.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:

 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not 
 like D will stop undergoing improvements.
 

Er, perhaps private should actually mean "private" before that happens? 
And, package should mean "package", protected mean "protected" and so 
on? It seems the whole visibility thing broke down completely fairly 
recently. It used to work nicely!

BCS <BCS_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e8naf1$2g9g$2 digitaldaemon.com>, kris says...
Walter Bright wrote:

 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not 
 like D will stop undergoing improvements.
 

Er, perhaps private should actually mean "private" before that happens? 
And, package should mean "package", protected mean "protected" and so 
on? It seems the whole visibility thing broke down completely fairly 
recently. It used to work nicely!

How about a future freeze? I could live with D as it is now, at least in
concept. This would leave open fixing things that don't work and changing the
speck to match how it end up when stuff gets fixed (protections, etc.).

The only major breaking changes I would like to see center around imports and
const. For the most part, fixing the breaks caused by the first should be
simple. The second... well that might be better to do pre 1.0, it will be much
harder to do something like const-by-default later. Except for possibly those, I
think we have specks for all the features we need for 1.0.

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:42:18 +1000, Walter Bright  
<newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make  
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in  
 before 1.0.

 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not  
 like D will stop undergoing improvements.

Yes! Additional improvements will then show that it is getting even better  
and that it is not abandoned.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

 
 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
 before 1.0.
 
 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not 
 like D will stop undergoing improvements.

I think it's a two-step process. My opinion:
Announce a 1.0 feature freeze immediately. Don't actually announce DMD 
1.0 until the regressions related to protection are fixed. A 1.0 
announcement is a major public relations opportunity (one of the biggest 
the language will get), it's important to avoid a PR disaster. But 
internally, we can view 0.162 as DMD 1.0 RC1.

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
 before 1.0.

 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's 
 not like D will stop undergoing improvements.

 
 I think it's a two-step process. My opinion:
 Announce a 1.0 feature freeze immediately. Don't actually announce DMD 
 1.0 until the regressions related to protection are fixed. A 1.0 
 announcement is a major public relations opportunity (one of the biggest 
 the language will get), it's important to avoid a PR disaster. But 
 internally, we can view 0.162 as DMD 1.0 RC1.

Agreed.  As soon as the feature list for 1.0 is decided and any 
contentious issues have been resolved (ie. the visibility issue being 
discussed now) I think an announced feature freeze would be the proper 
first step towards a 1.0 release.  Compiler bugs could continue to be 
worked on, and perhaps a joint effort could be made to fill out the spec 
in places it's either confusing or sparse.


Sean

BCS <BCS_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e8olc3$12i4$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
Don Clugston wrote:
 
 I think it's a two-step process. My opinion:
 Announce a 1.0 feature freeze immediately. Don't actually announce DMD 
 1.0 until the regressions related to protection are fixed. A 1.0 
 announcement is a major public relations opportunity (one of the biggest 
 the language will get), it's important to avoid a PR disaster. But 
 internally, we can view 0.162 as DMD 1.0 RC1.

Agreed.  As soon as the feature list for 1.0 is decided and any 
contentious issues have been resolved (ie. the visibility issue being 
discussed now) I think an announced feature freeze would be the proper 
first step towards a 1.0 release.  Compiler bugs could continue to be 
worked on, and perhaps a joint effort could be made to fill out the spec 
in places it's either confusing or sparse.


Sean

How about feature-freeze NOW at what is in DMD already and things that are under
major discussion?

Reference:
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39770

Only one of the sighted is a feature (const) the other is semantic adjustment of
a pre existing feature.

Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 In article <e8olc3$12i4$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
 Don Clugston wrote:
 I think it's a two-step process. My opinion:
 Announce a 1.0 feature freeze immediately. Don't actually announce DMD 
 1.0 until the regressions related to protection are fixed. A 1.0 
 announcement is a major public relations opportunity (one of the biggest 
 the language will get), it's important to avoid a PR disaster. But 
 internally, we can view 0.162 as DMD 1.0 RC1.

 Agreed.  As soon as the feature list for 1.0 is decided and any 
 contentious issues have been resolved (ie. the visibility issue being 
 discussed now) I think an announced feature freeze would be the proper 
 first step towards a 1.0 release.  Compiler bugs could continue to be 
 worked on, and perhaps a joint effort could be made to fill out the spec 
 in places it's either confusing or sparse.


 Sean

 
 How about feature-freeze NOW at what is in DMD already and things that are
under
 major discussion?
 
 Reference:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39770
 
 Only one of the sighted is a feature (const) the other is semantic adjustment
of
 a pre existing feature.
 

Hear, Hear to all of you. I'd be satisfied to even let the const issue 
slide (assuming 'const by default' is out of the question) because it 
looks to me what Walter has in mind (*) could even be a v1.1 solution 
and not break much if any code.

Nailing down the the visibility and accessibility rules is obviously a 
must for v1.0 though.

* My earlier post actually looks very doable, is consistent with the 
language and reference implementation and actually meets Walter's 
criteria of being meaningful to the compiler:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39757

Don't know what to do about a 'const' return modifier though.

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 
 Kyle Furlong wrote:

 *Standing Ovation*


 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
 before 1.0.

 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's 
 not like D will stop undergoing improvements.

 
 
 I think it's a two-step process. My opinion:
 Announce a 1.0 feature freeze immediately. Don't actually announce DMD 
 1.0 until the regressions related to protection are fixed. A 1.0 
 announcement is a major public relations opportunity (one of the biggest 
 the language will get), it's important to avoid a PR disaster. But 
 internally, we can view 0.162 as DMD 1.0 RC1.

Precisely!

clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

 
 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
 before 1.0.
 
 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not 
 like D will stop undergoing improvements.
 

I agree, I think we should freeze 1.0 now because D as a language has 
had a long maturing process already, and I imagine you could be bug 
fixing for the next 20 years :-P

This will make two groups of people happy,


products, as well as perhaps a D 1.0 book to start the publicity tour



Sometimes, just having a stable unchanging product is major feature in 
itself.

Go for it, get the word out there, and good luck!

~ Clay

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:42:18 -0700, Walter Bright  
<newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make  
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in  
 before 1.0.

 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not  
 like D will stop undergoing improvements.

One thing I think is important before 1.0 is explaining why certain  
features are implemented the way they are, why certain features are  
missing and when they're expected to arrive and so on. The current docs do  
include some of this information but it's buried a little and not  
targetted at someone who may not be taking a truly in depth look at D.

This will make it harder for people to dismiss D because their favourite  
feature X isn't there. Most people who dismiss D do so out of ignorance  
for the details involved in feature X, the options for implementing X and  
the faults of (their favourite) language Y's implementation of X.

In other words I want us to "lower the bar", making it easier for people  
to decide to give D a go.

Something else which might be good, although can be seen as something  
defensive, implying a need to be defensive.. is a rebuttal of the common  
arguments against D itself or certain features of D i.e. garbage  
collection.

Again, it's mostly in ignorance that people make broad sweeping statements  
like "garbage collection is slow" and in many cases providing a rebuttal  
(ideally with independant, 3rd party, links/evidence to support the  
rebuttal) is all you need to get these people thinking about it more  
critically and perhaps deciding to give it a go and see.

I'm positive once people give D a go they'll never leave.. so all we have  
to do is "lower the bar" and entice more people in the door.

:o)

Regan

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

 
 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
 before 1.0.
 
 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not 
 like D will stop undergoing improvements.
 

Here comes the contrarian view:
I think the people that want 1.0 ASAP (I'm not one of them btw) want 
more than just the branding "1.0", they want some guarantees that the 
language is good enough to be usable as is, and they likely also want 
"1.0" to mean that 2.0 won't be radically different from 1.0 . For 
example, let's consider this:

clayasaurus wrote:
 This will make two groups of people happy,


 products, as well as perhaps a D 1.0 book to start the publicity tour

In this case of wanting to write a 1.0 book or doing very large 
commercial products, then "1.0" actually should indicate that the 
language is good and polished enough as is. They want a finished 
product, and likely also want that 2.0 won't be radically different from 
1.0, so that the book won't quickly become mostly obsolete, or that the 
large-scale product will need a lot of work to be updated to 2.0 .

Taking too long to reach a true 1.0 is a slightly bad in my opinion, but 
I think it is *much* worse to shove a "1.0" product that is flawed, 
unpolished, inconsistent, incomplete, etc.. And as is clear to all here, 
D still has many design issues that need to be worked out (not to 
mention Phobos).


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
 before 1.0.

 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's 
 not like D will stop undergoing improvements.

 
 Here comes the contrarian view:
 I think the people that want 1.0 ASAP (I'm not one of them btw) want 
 more than just the branding "1.0", they want some guarantees that the 
 language is good enough to be usable as is, and they likely also want 
 "1.0" to mean that 2.0 won't be radically different from 1.0 . For 
 example, let's consider this:
 
 clayasaurus wrote:
  >
  > This will make two groups of people happy,
  >

  > products, as well as perhaps a D 1.0 book to start the publicity tour
  >
 
 In this case of wanting to write a 1.0 book or doing very large 
 commercial products, then "1.0" actually should indicate that the 
 language is good and polished enough as is. They want a finished 
 product, and likely also want that 2.0 won't be radically different from 
 1.0, so that the book won't quickly become mostly obsolete, or that the 
 large-scale product will need a lot of work to be updated to 2.0 .
 
 Taking too long to reach a true 1.0 is a slightly bad in my opinion, but 
 I think it is *much* worse to shove a "1.0" product that is flawed, 
 unpolished, inconsistent, incomplete, etc.. And as is clear to all here, 
 D still has many design issues that need to be worked out (not to 
 mention Phobos).
 
 

Good points, but as with everything there is a tradeoff between polish 
and release and IMHO there's been just about enough polish. I think the 
general consensus is that D is currently good enough *if*: The import 
usability issues and the broken/inconsistent protection attribute issues 
are taken care of.

There are also some who'd like some form of 'const' but the trick is or 
will be to make that better than what C++ offers (and readily 
implementable). Heck, I'd be happier than a pig in mud if we could also 
get some form of 'const' reference-type function arguments, but that can 
wait for v1.1 if need be <g>

- Dave

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Dave wrote:
 Good points, but as with everything there is a tradeoff between polish 
 and release and IMHO there's been just about enough polish. I think the 
 general consensus is that D is currently good enough *if*: The import 
 usability issues and the broken/inconsistent protection attribute issues 
 are taken care of.
 
 There are also some who'd like some form of 'const' but the trick is or 
 will be to make that better than what C++ offers (and readily 
 implementable). Heck, I'd be happier than a pig in mud if we could also 
 get some form of 'const' reference-type function arguments, but that can 
 wait for v1.1 if need be <g>

Couldn't have said it better!

clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
 before 1.0.

 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's 
 not like D will stop undergoing improvements.

 
 Here comes the contrarian view:
 I think the people that want 1.0 ASAP (I'm not one of them btw) want 
 more than just the branding "1.0", they want some guarantees that the 
 language is good enough to be usable as is, and they likely also want 
 "1.0" to mean that 2.0 won't be radically different from 1.0 . For 
 example, let's consider this:
 
 clayasaurus wrote:
  >
  > This will make two groups of people happy,
  >

  > products, as well as perhaps a D 1.0 book to start the publicity tour
  >
 
 In this case of wanting to write a 1.0 book or doing very large 
 commercial products, then "1.0" actually should indicate that the 
 language is good and polished enough as is. They want a finished 
 product, and likely also want that 2.0 won't be radically different from 
 1.0, so that the book won't quickly become mostly obsolete, or that the 
 large-scale product will need a lot of work to be updated to 2.0 .
 
 Taking too long to reach a true 1.0 is a slightly bad in my opinion, but 
 I think it is *much* worse to shove a "1.0" product that is flawed, 
 unpolished, inconsistent, incomplete, etc.. And as is clear to all here, 
 D still has many design issues that need to be worked out (not to 
 mention Phobos).
 
 

If it wasn't clear in my post, I do think 2.0 should be radically 
different, otherwise there is no big improvement.

Walter has not been inclined lately to include radical new features 
because there is 'too much water under the bridge.' If that is the case, 
we should get a 1.0 out now and then use 2.0 for the _real_ improvements.

Maybe not even call it D 2.0, but D++ ;) so people don't expect code 
compatibility.

Jeremy <Jeremy_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e8rshs$1rc0$1 digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 *Standing Ovation*

 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
 before 1.0.

 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's 
 not like D will stop undergoing improvements.

 
 Here comes the contrarian view:
 I think the people that want 1.0 ASAP (I'm not one of them btw) want 
 more than just the branding "1.0", they want some guarantees that the 
 language is good enough to be usable as is, and they likely also want 
 "1.0" to mean that 2.0 won't be radically different from 1.0 . For 
 example, let's consider this:
 
 clayasaurus wrote:
  >
  > This will make two groups of people happy,
  >

  > products, as well as perhaps a D 1.0 book to start the publicity tour
  >
 
 In this case of wanting to write a 1.0 book or doing very large 
 commercial products, then "1.0" actually should indicate that the 
 language is good and polished enough as is. They want a finished 
 product, and likely also want that 2.0 won't be radically different from 
 1.0, so that the book won't quickly become mostly obsolete, or that the 
 large-scale product will need a lot of work to be updated to 2.0 .
 
 Taking too long to reach a true 1.0 is a slightly bad in my opinion, but 
 I think it is *much* worse to shove a "1.0" product that is flawed, 
 unpolished, inconsistent, incomplete, etc.. And as is clear to all here, 
 D still has many design issues that need to be worked out (not to 
 mention Phobos).
 
 

If it wasn't clear in my post, I do think 2.0 should be radically 
different, otherwise there is no big improvement.

Walter has not been inclined lately to include radical new features 
because there is 'too much water under the bridge.' If that is the case, 
we should get a 1.0 out now and then use 2.0 for the _real_ improvements.

Maybe not even call it D 2.0, but D++ ;) so people don't expect code 
compatibility.

Eh, I bet "D" will not be very successful if "D++" is *already* planned to phase
out "D" (and not be compatible).

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 
 *Standing Ovation*

 
 
 Yeah, that's concerned me as well. But it isn't just me trying to make 
 it perfect, everyone's got their favorite bug/feature that must get in 
 before 1.0.
 
 So what do you say we just call D right now *1.0* and move on? It's not 
 like D will stop undergoing improvements.

I support that!

(Except protection and module logic simply have to be fixed in 1.0.
And I don't want the const issue touched before 1.1.)

Actually, now is a good time of the year to do this. Come fall, everyone 
will be buzzing about D 1.0!

And, please, buy 3 hours of professional PR-consulting right now -- you 
won't regret it!

John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:

Georg,

Could you please contact me at terminal.node gmail.com?  I think your email here
is likely not a valid one.

Thanks!

-JJR

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:

Boris Wang wrote:
 If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

Walter dieing on a horrible accident.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:34:24 +1000, Bruno Medeiros  
<brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> wrote:

 Boris Wang wrote:
  > If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

 Walter dieing on a horrible accident.

DMD is not D.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

"Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:op.tcbziit86b8z09 ginger.vic.bigpond.net.au...
 On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:34:24 +1000, Bruno Medeiros 
 <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> wrote:

 Boris Wang wrote:
  > If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

 Walter dieing on a horrible accident.

 DMD is not D.

It's not? Sure?

L. 

Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org> writes:

Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:34:24 +1000, Bruno Medeiros 
 <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> wrote:
 
 Boris Wang wrote:
  > If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

 Walter dieing on a horrible accident.

 
 DMD is not D.
 
 --Derek Parnell
 Melbourne, Australia

DMD is the reference compiler, though. Don't forget that.

Regards,
Alex