www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - GCC 4.6

reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
They keep adding more and more stuff to GCC, some unfinished notes about GCC
4.6, there are some interesting things:

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html


Some points:


 Improved auto-detection of const and pure functions. Newly, noreturn functions
are auto-detected.


-Wsuggest-attribute=[pure|const|noreturn]
    Warn for cases where adding an attribute may be beneficial. The attributes
currently supported are listed below.

    -Wsuggest-attribute=pure
    -Wsuggest-attribute=const
    -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn
        Warn about functions which might be candidates for attributes pure,
const or noreturn. The compiler only warns for functions visible in other
compilation units or (in the case of pure and const) if it cannot prove that
the function returns normally. A function returns normally if it doesn't
contain an infinite loop nor returns abnormally by throwing, calling abort() or
trapping. This analysis requires option -fipa-pure-const, which is enabled by
default at -O and higher. Higher optimization levels improve the accuracy of
the analysis. 


This is one of the "compiler tips" for DMD I was talking about :-) It seems GCC
devs like that idea.

It may be good to have a DMD tip that lists where the programmer may add pure,
const for class/struct methods, maybe nothrow (and  noreturn if and when it's
present in D). It reduces the time needed to add those attributes to D code.

----------------------


 Partial inlining is now supported and enabled by default at -O2 and greater.
The feature can
 be controlled via -fpartial-inlining.
 Partial inlining splits functions with short hot path to return. This allows
more aggressive
 inlining of the hot path leading to better performance and often to code size
reductions
 (because cold parts of functions are not duplicated).


This is very good. The JavaVM is doing this for years. I don't know how GCC
finds the hot paths, I presume it uses profiling data.

----------------------


 Virtual methods considered for inlining when caller is inlined and
devirtualization
 is possible then.


This is good if it works. I will need to test how well this works...

----------------------


 A new switch -fstack-usage has been added. It makes the compiler output stack
 usage information for the program, on a per-function basis, in an auxiliary
file.


This is useful especially on small systems.

----------------------


 The -Wshadow option now warns if a local variable or type declaration shadows
another
 type in C++. Note that the compiler will not warn if a local variable shadows a
 struct/class/enum, but will warn if it shadows an explicit typedef.


This seems interesting.

----------------------


 The new -fsplit-stack option permits programs to use a discontiguous stack.
 This is useful for threaded programs, in that it is no longer necessary to
specify
 the maximum stack size when creating a thread. This feature is currently only
 implemented for 32-bit and 64-bit x86 GNU/Linux targets.


This sounds like a similar feature of the Go language.

Bye,
bearophile
Oct 30 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
bearophile wrote:

 The -Wshadow option now warns if a local variable or type declaration shadows
another
 type in C++. Note that the compiler will not warn if a local variable shadows a
 struct/class/enum, but will warn if it shadows an explicit typedef.


 
 This seems interesting.


Yeah, D has had that for 10 years now.
Oct 30 2010
parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter:


 bearophile wrote:

 The -Wshadow option now warns if a local variable or type declaration shadows
another
 type in C++. Note that the compiler will not warn if a local variable shadows a
 struct/class/enum, but will warn if it shadows an explicit typedef.


 
 This seems interesting.


 
 Yeah, D has had that for 10 years now.


Let's focus our attention on what DMD "lacks", instead! :-) If you focus only
on your strong points you will not improve yourself, this is a basic rule for
any serious artist or athlete.

Regarding that feature, this program shows no warnings, is this a bad example?

alias int foo;
struct bar {}
void main() {
    int foo;
    int bar;
}

Bye,
bearophile
Oct 30 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bearophile, let me start by emphasizing that you are a valuable member of the D 
community.

bearophile wrote:

 Walter:
 

 bearophile wrote:

 The -Wshadow option now warns if a local variable or type declaration shadows
another
 type in C++. Note that the compiler will not warn if a local variable shadows a
 struct/class/enum, but will warn if it shadows an explicit typedef.


 This seems interesting.


 Yeah, D has had that for 10 years now.


 
 Let's focus our attention on what DMD "lacks", instead! :-)


Why? What matters is whether D gets the job done or not, not whether it has a 
laundry list that encompasses every single feature of every other language. 
Isn't this endless desire for checklists of features incompatible with your 
expressed desire for a simple language? You post lists of features every day.
If 
I had a staff of 100 expert people working on the compiler, I could not begin
to 
keep up with that. At some point, it's pointless.

It also bothers me that you regularly read feature lists put out by other 
languages, and seem unaware of what D can do. For example, you wrote recently 
that dmd lacked data flow analysis optimizations.



 If you focus only on your strong points you will not improve yourself,


If you focus only on what you lack, you will be seriously unhappy. And D also 
*should* focus on what it does well.



 this is a basic rule for any serious artist or athlete.


Would you criticize a long distance runner for being lousy at wrestling? 
Shouldn't a long distance runner focus on what he's good at - long distance
running?



 Regarding that feature, this program shows no warnings, is this a bad example?
 
 alias int foo;
 struct bar {}
 void main() {
     int foo;
     int bar;
 }


Yes, it is a bad example. My experience is that shadowing global declarations
is 
not a problem. Shadowing local ones is, though, and I've seen a lot of bugs 
caused by it.

void foo(int x)
{
   {
     long x;
   }
}

dmd -c test
test.d(4): Error: shadowing declaration test.foo.x is deprecated
Oct 30 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:iaiehl$24s1$1 digitalmars.com...

 bearophile wrote:


 If you focus only on your strong points you will not improve yourself,
 this is a basic rule for any serious artist or athlete.


 Would you criticize a long distance runner for being lousy at wrestling? 
 Shouldn't a long distance runner focus on what he's good at - long 
 distance running?


Tell that to Bo Jackson! :)
Oct 30 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:iaifev$26jn$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:iaiehl$24s1$1 digitalmars.com...

 bearophile wrote:


 If you focus only on your strong points you will not improve yourself,
 this is a basic rule for any serious artist or athlete.


 Would you criticize a long distance runner for being lousy at wrestling? 
 Shouldn't a long distance runner focus on what he's good at - long 
 distance running?


 Tell that to Bo Jackson! :)


On a more serious note though, just focusing on what something's good at 
amounts to wearing blinders and is exactly what turned Java into a 
puritanical piece of shit: "Java's good at objects, so let's pretend nothing 
else exists." And it's what made Haskell into something that practically no 
one uses for real-world work: "Haskell's really good at functional. So let's 
pretend nothing else exists." Of course, what makes D so great is that we 
all know perfectly well it tries to do a variety of things well, which is 
actually in contrast to what you're saying here.

I can certainly understand the impossibility of actually keeping up with 
bearophile, but I don't think that even he expects that every idea he brings 
up be rushed into D.
Oct 30 2010
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On a more serious note though, just focusing on what something's good at 
 amounts to wearing blinders and is exactly what turned Java into a 
 puritanical piece of shit: "Java's good at objects, so let's pretend nothing 
 else exists." And it's what made Haskell into something that practically no 
 one uses for real-world work: "Haskell's really good at functional. So let's 
 pretend nothing else exists." Of course, what makes D so great is that we 
 all know perfectly well it tries to do a variety of things well, which is 
 actually in contrast to what you're saying here.
 
 I can certainly understand the impossibility of actually keeping up with 
 bearophile, but I don't think that even he expects that every idea he brings 
 up be rushed into D.


Balance is, of course, essential. So is prioritizing what is important and what 
is not.
Oct 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Well, let me say that both languages seem to be doing much better than D.

Java like it or not, is the number one language in Europe. If you know Java 
or
C++ well, even with the current crisis, it's quite easy to get a job in the 
IT sector.

As for Haskell, for sure it is an academic language but it gets much more 
industry
support than D has. Lets not forget that its development is sponsored by 
Microsoft.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2010/05/27/announcing-intel-concurrent-collections-for-haskell-01/
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Haskell_in_industry
http://cufp.org/conference

I agree with bearophile, if you want D to become more visible in the 
industry, it needs to
be more stable, have tools and a clearer image.

I came to this forums, after reading the TDPL, a few months ago, when I was 
getting into Go,
and wanted to see what D was about.

What I found is that D also shares some fate with Java. Many people have a 
bad opinion about
Java due to issues that are no longer true. In D's case many people still 
refer to Tango\Phobos
issues and community issues.

Even though I have no use for D on my line of work, I have found nice 
community and wish all the best
for the language.


--
Paulo

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:iaig3k$27oc$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
 news:iaifev$26jn$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:iaiehl$24s1$1 digitalmars.com...

 bearophile wrote:


 If you focus only on your strong points you will not improve yourself,
 this is a basic rule for any serious artist or athlete.


 Would you criticize a long distance runner for being lousy at wrestling? 
 Shouldn't a long distance runner focus on what he's good at - long 
 distance running?


 Tell that to Bo Jackson! :)


 On a more serious note though, just focusing on what something's good at 
 amounts to wearing blinders and is exactly what turned Java into a 
 puritanical piece of shit: "Java's good at objects, so let's pretend 
 nothing else exists." And it's what made Haskell into something that 
 practically no one uses for real-world work: "Haskell's really good at 
 functional. So let's pretend nothing else exists." Of course, what makes D 
 so great is that we all know perfectly well it tries to do a variety of 
 things well, which is actually in contrast to what you're saying here.

 I can certainly understand the impossibility of actually keeping up with 
 bearophile, but I don't think that even he expects that every idea he 
 brings up be rushed into D.
Oct 31 2010
parent Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
On 31/10/10 10:59 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 What I found is that D also shares some fate with Java. Many people have a
 bad opinion about
 Java due to issues that are no longer true. In D's case many people still
 refer to Tango\Phobos
 issues and community issues.


These things go away with time. People used to complain about terrible 
template support in C++ compilers, but not any more.

I definitely agree that D needs more stability and tools. These things 
will come with time as well.

I also think that D needs some killer app(s) that people will look at 
and think "Oh, that was made with D? Maybe I should have a look at 
learning it..." Nothing shows what a language is capable of more than 
the apps that are made using it.
Oct 31 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 I can certainly understand the impossibility of actually keeping up with
 bearophile, but I don't think that even he expects that every idea he  
 brings
 up be rushed into D.


Yeah, I always see bearophile's lists as 'maybe some of this could fit in
D at some point'. Well worth having on the list, but not to be regarded as
The Bearer of Absolute Commandments. That said, I fully understand that
Walter could get more tired of it than do I - I don't feel the pressure.

-- 
Simen
Oct 31 2010
next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 31 Oct 2010 16:48:47 +0100, Simen kjaeraas wrote:


 Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 

 I can certainly understand the impossibility of actually keeping up
 with bearophile, but I don't think that even he expects that every idea
 he brings
 up be rushed into D.


 
 Yeah, I always see bearophile's lists as 'maybe some of this could fit
 in D at some point'. Well worth having on the list, but not to be
 regarded as The Bearer of Absolute Commandments. That said, I fully
 understand that Walter could get more tired of it than do I - I don't
 feel the pressure.


Bearophile often compares DMD to world class products such as LLVM. Even 
though Walter might be the best compiler writer in this world, he can't 
compete with a motivated team of professionals. The Intel C++ compiler, 
GCC, and LLVM teams are simply much bigger and well paid. Same things 
with DMDScript vs Google's Javascript engine. It's almost impossible to 
compete with these big teams. If you need performance, you probably use 
these tools instead.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:

 Bearophile often compares DMD to world class products such as LLVM. Even 
 though Walter might be the best compiler writer in this world, he can't 
 compete with a motivated team of professionals.


What irritated me about bearophile's comparison of dmd to LLVM is he would say 
things like dmd didn't do data flow analysis (it does) and that it had poor 
integer arithmetic code gen (the integer arithmetic was the same) that it
didn't 
do common loop optimizations (it did), etc.



 The Intel C++ compiler, 
 GCC, and LLVM teams are simply much bigger and well paid.


Yes, I know people just assume dmd doesn't do things because it is a small
team. 
My favorite was the assumption that dmd didn't do the Named Return Value 
optimization, an optimization I invented back in 1990.

Back in the days of competitive compiler benchmarks, my compiler often won
them, 
up against those well paid huge compiler teams from MS, Borland, etc. A friend 
told me once that the head of one large company used to yell down the halls how 
come Walter sitting over his garage can beat you guys. That made me feel good.



 Same things 
 with DMDScript vs Google's Javascript engine. It's almost impossible to 
 compete with these big teams. If you need performance, you probably use 
 these tools instead.


I have to laugh at that. When DMDScript was created, back in 2001, it was twice 
as fast as Microsoft's Jscript, and *twenty* times faster than Mozilla's 
javascript. All from little ole me. It passed Sun's javascript validation
suite, 
and was sold by sun as part of their Chilicom software (the C++ version).

I haven't worked on it in 10 years, though, because of a lack of customer 
interest in it. It took the others 10 years to catch up.

Where the large teams pay off, though, is the breadth of the offering.
Oct 31 2010
next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 11:14 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
[ . . . ]

 Yes, I know people just assume dmd doesn't do things because it is a smal=


l team.=20
[ . . . ]

 Where the large teams pay off, though, is the breadth of the offering.


I appreciate this is going off topic somewhat for the list, never mind
the original posting, but I think summarizing this issue should be
constructive -- albeit me seemingly acting as Devil's Advocate.  (NB
This is not a troll, for me these are serious issues -- I am a
consultant and therefore whilst I do no significant development on big
projects, I advise influencers and decision makers.)

The marketing problem for D, at least as it impinges on me, is that it
is "Walter's language with Andrei helping out".  No matter that this may
be an unfair and incorrect representation of reality overall, it is
nonetheless what the project management and CTO/CIO community perceive
of D, if they have heard of it at all.

Let us assume the competition that D aims at is C, C++ and Go.  I think
we can ignore the VM-based community for now in this as they are either
C/C++/Python/Lua or Java/Scala/Groovy/Clojure/C/C++ centred with little
chance of looking for alternatives.  Where the "native code" and
"virtual machine" communities have overlap, it is generally handled by
build, usually using SCons, Waf, or some home-grown equivalent.

C and C++ have international standards, multiple compliant (!)
realizations, huge vendor support, a long history, and much tooling.  Go
has Google behind it.

D is perceived as a collection of "one-man band" bits with a few
hangers-on.  In this light, there is no way for D to have any traction,
even if it is technically a better language than any of the actual
competition.

In order to get the ability to get traction, I see two main ways
forward:

1.  A big company gets involved and provides resources to ramp up on the
productization of the end-to-end toolchain and library support -- so all
of IDE support Qt, GTK libraries, etc. -- and gets some seriously
high-profile projects using D.

2.  The project goes fully open source with a core of 5 or 6 people,
supported by employers or via some form of sponsorship, actively working
nigh on full time to ramp up on the productization of the end-to-end
toolchain and library support -- so all of IDE support Qt, GTK
libraries, etc. -- and gets some seriously high-profile projects using
D.

Over the roughly four to five years I have known about D very little has
seemed to change in the organization and marketing of the language and
its development.  The technical quality is there, the intention is
there, but the realization of the dream has had no constructive effort.
The ACCU conference has a couple of talks on or mentioning D each year,
but there is nothing in between, There seems to be no "D buzz", even in
London.  Compare this to the "buzz" in London about Go.  Not to mention
the continued interest and "buzz" around C, C++, Java, Scala, Clojure,
etc.

Some (arguably rhetorical) questions:

--  Why did Google push Go rather than use D when they became
dissatisfied with C, C++, etc.

--  Can D be used for the native clients in the web applications arena
that seem to be coming, cf. Go's NaCl.

--  Why don't ThoughtWorks use Go and D, but push Clojure and Ruby?

--  How come no recruitment agent cares about D experience (or lack of
it)?

--  What will make companies take the risk and use D for a project
instead of C++?  Or put another way why do companies just use C and C++
even ion the face of better alternatives?

Actually I know the answers to the last two and they have no basis in
technical issues.

Having already written half an essay, I think I will leave it there.  I
really would like to see D get some serious traction, but to be honest
with the way things have and continue to go, I have doubts.  Can I be
proved wrong?

--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Oct 31 2010
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Russel Winder:


--  Why did Google push Go rather than use D when they became dissatisfied with
C, C++, etc.


I don't know the answer, but maybe the answer is inside the Google C++ style
guide, this document disallows most of the features of C++. So it seems Google
doesn't want 3/4 of the features of D2. And maybe inside Google Pike and other
people prefer to invent a new language.



--  Can D be used for the native clients in the web applications arena that
seem to be coming, cf. Go's NaCl.


NaCl seems a nice idea, but I think so far no one is using it. It's in Chrome,
so things may eventually change.

Bye,
bearophile
Oct 31 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Russel Winder wrote:

 I appreciate this is going off topic somewhat for the list, never mind
 the original posting, but I think summarizing this issue should be
 constructive -- albeit me seemingly acting as Devil's Advocate.  (NB
 This is not a troll, for me these are serious issues -- I am a
 consultant and therefore whilst I do no significant development on big
 projects, I advise influencers and decision makers.)
 
 The marketing problem for D, at least as it impinges on me, is that it
 is "Walter's language with Andrei helping out".  No matter that this may
 be an unfair and incorrect representation of reality overall, it is
 nonetheless what the project management and CTO/CIO community perceive
 of D, if they have heard of it at all.


Most (all?) languages have one or two prime designers behind it. What mystifies 
me is why this is considered a bad thing for D.



 Let us assume the competition that D aims at is C, C++ and Go.  I think
 we can ignore the VM-based community for now in this as they are either
 C/C++/Python/Lua or Java/Scala/Groovy/Clojure/C/C++ centred with little
 chance of looking for alternatives.  Where the "native code" and
 "virtual machine" communities have overlap, it is generally handled by
 build, usually using SCons, Waf, or some home-grown equivalent.
 
 C and C++ have international standards, multiple compliant (!)
 realizations, huge vendor support, a long history, and much tooling.  Go
 has Google behind it.


C and C++ existed and were successful long before any of those standards 
existed. C++ was "Bjarne's language" for 15 years, and that did not impair it. 
C, of course, is Kernighan and Ritchie's. Perl is Larry Wall's. Python is Guido 
van Rossum's. And on and on. (Perl, Python, Ruby, have only one implementation.)



 D is perceived as a collection of "one-man band" bits with a few
 hangers-on.  In this light, there is no way for D to have any traction,
 even if it is technically a better language than any of the actual
 competition.


Yet other successful languages follow this same model. Why is it bad for D? I 
suspect it really is some other issue.




 In order to get the ability to get traction, I see two main ways
 forward:
 
 1.  A big company gets involved and provides resources to ramp up on the
 productization of the end-to-end toolchain and library support -- so all
 of IDE support Qt, GTK libraries, etc. -- and gets some seriously
 high-profile projects using D.


I agree that would help enormously.



 2.  The project goes fully open source with a core of 5 or 6 people,
 supported by employers or via some form of sponsorship, actively working
 nigh on full time to ramp up on the productization of the end-to-end
 toolchain and library support -- so all of IDE support Qt, GTK
 libraries, etc. -- and gets some seriously high-profile projects using
 D.


D is fully open source.



 Over the roughly four to five years I have known about D very little has
 seemed to change in the organization and marketing of the language and
 its development.  The technical quality is there, the intention is
 there, but the realization of the dream has had no constructive effort.
 The ACCU conference has a couple of talks on or mentioning D each year,
 but there is nothing in between, There seems to be no "D buzz", even in
 London.  Compare this to the "buzz" in London about Go.  Not to mention
 the continued interest and "buzz" around C, C++, Java, Scala, Clojure,
 etc.
 
 Some (arguably rhetorical) questions:
 
 --  Why did Google push Go rather than use D when they became
 dissatisfied with C, C++, etc.
 
 --  Can D be used for the native clients in the web applications arena
 that seem to be coming, cf. Go's NaCl.
 
 --  Why don't ThoughtWorks use Go and D, but push Clojure and Ruby?
 
 --  How come no recruitment agent cares about D experience (or lack of
 it)?
 
 --  What will make companies take the risk and use D for a project
 instead of C++?  Or put another way why do companies just use C and C++
 even ion the face of better alternatives?
 
 Actually I know the answers to the last two and they have no basis in
 technical issues.
 
 Having already written half an essay, I think I will leave it there.  I
 really would like to see D get some serious traction, but to be honest
 with the way things have and continue to go, I have doubts.  Can I be
 proved wrong?


Sometimes I feel people are just waiting around, wanting to use D, but waiting 
for someone else to make the first move. It's like a dance club, where everyone 
sits on their toes wanting to go out on the floor, but unwilling to be the 
first. As soon as someone does, whoosh, everyone follows.
Oct 31 2010
next sibling parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:12:04 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:


 Russel Winder wrote:

 I appreciate this is going off topic somewhat for the list, never mind
 the original posting, but I think summarizing this issue should be
 constructive -- albeit me seemingly acting as Devil's Advocate.  (NB
 This is not a troll, for me these are serious issues -- I am a
 consultant and therefore whilst I do no significant development on big
 projects, I advise influencers and decision makers.)
 
 The marketing problem for D, at least as it impinges on me, is that it
 is "Walter's language with Andrei helping out".  No matter that this
 may be an unfair and incorrect representation of reality overall, it is
 nonetheless what the project management and CTO/CIO community perceive
 of D, if they have heard of it at all.


 
 Most (all?) languages have one or two prime designers behind it. What
 mystifies me is why this is considered a bad thing for D.


It's considered a bad thing when the users disagree with the design 
decisions. Those who have faith in the language continue to criticize / 
rant / provide patches and wish it would improve. Others just leave the 
sinking ship.


 (Perl, Python, Ruby, have only one implementation.)


Is this a joke?


 D is perceived as a collection of "one-man band" bits with a few
 hangers-on.  In this light, there is no way for D to have any traction,
 even if it is technically a better language than any of the actual
 competition.


 
 Yet other successful languages follow this same model. Why is it bad for
 D? I suspect it really is some other issue.


I've never gotten the impression that e.g. JavaScript/PHP/Python/Ruby/
Scala/Haskell were one man bands. C++ used to be a one man project, but 
now there's the committee. ISO/ANSI standards rarely are one man projects.



 2.  The project goes fully open source with a core of 5 or 6 people,
 supported by employers or via some form of sponsorship, actively
 working nigh on full time to ramp up on the productization of the
 end-to-end toolchain and library support -- so all of IDE support Qt,
 GTK libraries, etc. -- and gets some seriously high-profile projects
 using D.


 
 D is fully open source.


DMD has a non open source backend ( http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd ), 
but the D language is of course open. There aren't many "closed source" 
languages out there.

It would help if that backend was completely abandoned and something like 
LLVM was used instead. DMD and LDC teams could join their forces and 
implement something much faster. The other LLVM developers independently 
improve the backend optimizations.
Oct 31 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 van Rossum's. And on and on. (Perl, Python, Ruby, have only one
implementation.)


Nitpick (since your overall post was mostly on target):  Python has Jython and
IronPython and PyPy.  Ruby has JRuby and IronRuby.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
dsimcha wrote:

 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 van Rossum's. And on and on. (Perl, Python, Ruby, have only one
implementation.)


 
 Nitpick (since your overall post was mostly on target):  Python has Jython and
 IronPython and PyPy.  Ruby has JRuby and IronRuby.


Those came along *much* later, like more than a decade *after* those languages 
were successful.
Oct 31 2010
next sibling parent Jimmy Cao <jcao219 gmail.com> writes:
Interestingly, what goes along with the discussion about the perception of D
as a language is what happened to IronPython and IronRuby.  Microsoft
initially showed a whole lot of support for those two languages, and
assembled teams to work on both.  That caused a big surge in their
popularities.  Of course, later Microsoft kinda lost interest and IronRuby
was first "dropped" and recently Microsoft announced it was no longer
supporting IronPython.  So, I think having a strong community behind an
open-source language is desirable instead of having corporate support.
 Because of their communities, the IronPython and IronRuby projects are
still alive right now.

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 digitalmars.com>wrote:


 dsimcha wrote:


 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article


 van Rossum's. And on and on. (Perl, Python, Ruby, have only one
 implementation.)


 Nitpick (since your overall post was mostly on target):  Python has Jython
 and
 IronPython and PyPy.  Ruby has JRuby and IronRuby.


 Those came along *much* later, like more than a decade *after* those
 languages were successful.
Oct 31 2010
prev sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:27:03 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:


 dsimcha wrote:

 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 van Rossum's. And on and on. (Perl, Python, Ruby, have only one
 implementation.)


 
 Nitpick (since your overall post was mostly on target):  Python has
 Jython and IronPython and PyPy.  Ruby has JRuby and IronRuby.


 
 Those came along *much* later, like more than a decade *after* those
 languages were successful.


His point was: there *are* other implementations.

Other than that, the daily portion of bullshit talk from you is 
impressive.

"Around 2005, interest in the Ruby language surged in tandem with Ruby on 
Rails, a popular web application framework written in Ruby. Rails is 
frequently credited with making Ruby "famous" and the association is so 
strong that the two are sometimes conflated by programmers who are new to 
Ruby.[9]" [1]

"JRuby was originally created by Jan Arne Petersen, in 2001. At that time 
and for several years following, the code was a direct port of the Ruby 
1.6 C code. With the release of Ruby 1.8.6, an effort began to update 
JRuby to 1.8.6 features and semantics. Since 2001, several contributors 
have assisted the project, leading to the current (2008) core team of 
four members." [2]

"On April 30, 2007, at MIX 2007, Microsoft announced IronRuby, which uses 
the same name as Wilco Bauwer's IronRuby project with permission.[3] It 
was planned to be released to the public at OSCON 2007.[4]" [3]

My interpretation: JRuby existed before Ruby was famous. IronRuby was 
started pretty much because of the Rails hype. A lot of other CLR 
projects were also started at that time, though. It couldn't have started 
a lot earlier because of the immaturity of CLR.


I don't use Python that much so I have no idea when it really got 
popular. The code swarm video [4] gives some impressions. It looks like in 
2000 it finally took off. Jython started in 1997 and moved to sourceforge 
in 2000 [5]. IronPython was announced in 2006 [6].

Conclusion: 1997-2000 = -3 and 2006-2000 = 6 are a lot less than a 
"*much* later, like more than a decade"..

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_(programming_language)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JRuby
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronRuby
[4] http://www.vimeo.com/1093745
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jython
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronPython
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:

 "Around 2005, interest in the Ruby language surged in tandem with Ruby on 
 Rails, a popular web application framework written in Ruby. Rails is 
 frequently credited with making Ruby "famous" and the association is so 
 strong that the two are sometimes conflated by programmers who are new to 
 Ruby.[9]" [1]


I have the second edition of "Programming Ruby", the definitive book on Ruby. 
Ruby was first released in 1995, and the first edition in 2000, and there never 
would have been a second edition if it wasn't famous.



 "JRuby was originally created by Jan Arne Petersen, in 2001. At that time 
 and for several years following, the code was a direct port of the Ruby 
 1.6 C code. With the release of Ruby 1.8.6, an effort began to update 
 JRuby to 1.8.6 features and semantics. Since 2001, several contributors 
 have assisted the project, leading to the current (2008) core team of 
 four members." [2]
 
 "On April 30, 2007, at MIX 2007, Microsoft announced IronRuby, which uses 
 the same name as Wilco Bauwer's IronRuby project with permission.[3] It 
 was planned to be released to the public at OSCON 2007.[4]" [3]
 
 My interpretation: JRuby existed before Ruby was famous.


As you said, it was the same source code. That doesn't count.



 I don't use Python that much so I have no idea when it really got 
 popular.


Python was started in 1989. I remember a fair amount of buzz about it in 1997. 
My 1999 book on Python claims it is "becoming mainstream".


  The code swarm video [4] gives some impressions. It looks like in

 2000 it finally took off. Jython started in 1997 and moved to sourceforge 
 in 2000 [5]. IronPython was announced in 2006 [6].


This account http://hugunin.net/story_of_jython.html says that the creator of 
Jython worked with Guido personally. That suggests it, too, at least started as 
a port of Python. "This gave me the wonderful opportunity to work closely with 
many of the key Python developers there, including Guido van Rossum himself."

By the way, Cristi has created a .net implementation of D. Does that count?
Oct 31 2010
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 31/10/2010 23:20, Walter Bright wrote:

 retard wrote:

 "Around 2005, interest in the Ruby language surged in tandem with Ruby
 on Rails, a popular web application framework written in Ruby. Rails
 is frequently credited with making Ruby "famous" and the association
 is so strong that the two are sometimes conflated by programmers who
 are new to Ruby.[9]" [1]


 I have the second edition of "Programming Ruby", the definitive book on
 Ruby. Ruby was first released in 1995, and the first edition in 2000,
 and there never would have been a second edition if it wasn't famous.


Whoa, I didnt imagine Ruby to be that old, I didn't think it went back 
to before the 2000s ...


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Nov 24 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 10/31/2010 05:12 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 D is fully open source.


No, Walter, it isn't, and you should know this by now considering all 
the past discussion. All the back-end work you're doing is "source 
available". "Open source" was coined in 1998 by people with a precise 
meaning: See http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd and 
http://www.opensource.org/history .

In particular, free redistribution and derived works are fundamental to 
the open source definition.
Oct 31 2010
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 10/31/2010 05:12 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 D is fully open source.


 
 No, Walter, it isn't, and you should know this by now considering all 
 the past discussion. All the back-end work you're doing is "source 
 available". "Open source" was coined in 1998 by people with a precise 
 meaning: See http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd and 
 http://www.opensource.org/history .
 
 In particular, free redistribution and derived works are fundamental to 
 the open source definition.


Yes, and GDC and LDC are 100% GPL.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 10/31/2010 06:30 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Yes, and GDC and LDC are 100% GPL.


That's nice, except that neither are suitable as a replacement for your 
proprietary D2 compiler, which is the reference compiler and where all 
the bleeding edge work is done.

So strong statements like "D is fully open source" are misleading. The 
open source compilers are always playing catch-up, and the people that 
could be helping you out on the compiler are instead replicating your 
efforts.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 10/31/2010 06:30 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Yes, and GDC and LDC are 100% GPL.


 
 That's nice, except that neither are suitable as a replacement for your 
 proprietary D2 compiler, which is the reference compiler and where all 
 the bleeding edge work is done.
 
 So strong statements like "D is fully open source" are misleading.
 The
 open source compilers are always playing catch-up, and the people that 
 could be helping you out on the compiler are instead replicating your 
 efforts.



I don't agree. There's very little, almost no, D specific support in the dmd 
back end. It's a C compiler back end. Nearly all the work is done in the front 
end, which should be little more than a cut & paste job for LDC and GDC once 
they are already up and running with the front end.

The bugfix patches are nearly all tagged with specific updates to the source,
so 
any one critical patch can be easily applied.

There are 3 D compilers, 2.5 of which are GPL, and the source is available for 
the rest.
Oct 31 2010
next sibling parent reply Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 10/31/2010 09:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 I don't agree. There's very little, almost no, D specific support in the
 dmd back end. It's a C compiler back end. Nearly all the work is done in
 the front end, which should be little more than a cut & paste job for
 LDC and GDC once they are already up and running with the front end.


Are they using the front end?


 The bugfix patches are nearly all tagged with specific updates to the
 source, so any one critical patch can be easily applied.

 There are 3 D compilers, 2.5 of which are GPL, and the source is
 available for the rest.


First, 2.5/3.0 is not "fully open source". Second, as of yet, there is 
no open source compiler for D2 comparable with DMD, never mind any 
demonstration that it can keep up with any changes in the reference 
compiler.
Oct 31 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 10/31/2010 09:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 I don't agree. There's very little, almost no, D specific support in the
 dmd back end. It's a C compiler back end. Nearly all the work is done in
 the front end, which should be little more than a cut & paste job for
 LDC and GDC once they are already up and running with the front end.


 
 Are they using the front end?


Yes.
Oct 31 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

 On 10/31/2010 06:30 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Yes, and GDC and LDC are 100% GPL.


 That's nice, except that neither are suitable as a replacement for your
 proprietary D2 compiler, which is the reference compiler and where all
 the bleeding edge work is done.

 So strong statements like "D is fully open source" are misleading.


  > The

 open source compilers are always playing catch-up, and the people that
 could be helping you out on the compiler are instead replicating your
 efforts.


 I don't agree. There's very little, almost no, D specific support in the dmd
 back end. It's a C compiler back end. Nearly all the work is done in the front
 end, which should be little more than a cut & paste job for LDC and GDC once
 they are already up and running with the front end.
 The bugfix patches are nearly all tagged with specific updates to the source,
so
 any one critical patch can be easily applied.
 There are 3 D compilers, 2.5 of which are GPL, and the source is available for
 the rest.


That reminds me:  What is the actual status of LDC2?  According to the somewhat
outdated-looking LDC wiki, it's highly unstable.  According to
http://bitbucket.org/prokhin_alexey/ldc2 serious progress is being made.  Is it
in
a completely useless state?  An alpha state?  A beta state?

In the bigger picture, the only usable D2 implementation is DMD.  This isn't so
bad, as non-reference implementations always take awhile to catch up.  Jython,
for
example, is still back on Python 2.5.  However, it would be nice if there were
multiple *usable* implementations of D2.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
dsimcha wrote:

 In the bigger picture, the only usable D2 implementation is DMD.  This isn't so
 bad, as non-reference implementations always take awhile to catch up.  Jython,
for
 example, is still back on Python 2.5.  However, it would be nice if there were
 multiple *usable* implementations of D2.



I don't understand why there would be any technical reasons why a D1 compiler 
using the dmd front end could not relatively trivially upgrade to D2. I can't 
think of any back end changes necessary to support D2, other than some trivial 
changes to the symbolic debug info, which are not strictly necessary.

Additionally, if the LDC or GDC teams have suggestions on changes to the front 
end that will make their work easier, I'm not hard to find!
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 dsimcha wrote:

 In the bigger picture, the only usable D2 implementation is DMD.  This isn't so
 bad, as non-reference implementations always take awhile to catch up.  Jython,
for
 example, is still back on Python 2.5.  However, it would be nice if there were
 multiple *usable* implementations of D2.


 I don't understand why there would be any technical reasons why a D1 compiler
 using the dmd front end could not relatively trivially upgrade to D2.


For the most part, the incremental updates I've been doing with GDC have lots of
(what turned out to be) trivial changes. Add those changes all up though... :~)


 I can't think of any back end changes necessary to support D2, other
 than some trivial changes to the symbolic debug info, which are not
 strictly necessary.


The only feature I've come across that looks set to me (finally) making changes
to
the backed are with implementing in/out contract inheritance, but that's a D1
feature too...


 Additionally, if the LDC or GDC teams have suggestions on changes to the front
 end that will make their work easier, I'm not hard to find!


In a month, the GDC project may be in such a position (up to date + stable)
that I
will likely do so.
Nov 01 2010
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Iain Buclaw wrote:

 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 dsimcha wrote:

 In the bigger picture, the only usable D2 implementation is DMD.  This isn't so
 bad, as non-reference implementations always take awhile to catch up.  Jython,
for
 example, is still back on Python 2.5.  However, it would be nice if there were
 multiple *usable* implementations of D2.


 I don't understand why there would be any technical reasons why a D1 compiler
 using the dmd front end could not relatively trivially upgrade to D2.


 
 For the most part, the incremental updates I've been doing with GDC have lots
of
 (what turned out to be) trivial changes. Add those changes all up though... :~)
 

 I can't think of any back end changes necessary to support D2, other
 than some trivial changes to the symbolic debug info, which are not
 strictly necessary.


 
 The only feature I've come across that looks set to me (finally) making
changes to
 the backed are with implementing in/out contract inheritance, but that's a D1
 feature too...


Yup, make it work for one and you do for both.



 Additionally, if the LDC or GDC teams have suggestions on changes to the front
 end that will make their work easier, I'm not hard to find!


 
 In a month, the GDC project may be in such a position (up to date + stable)
that I
 will likely do so.


Great!
Nov 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/1/10 3:26 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 dsimcha wrote:

 In the bigger picture, the only usable D2 implementation is DMD.  This isn't so
 bad, as non-reference implementations always take awhile to catch up.  Jython,
for
 example, is still back on Python 2.5.  However, it would be nice if there were
 multiple *usable* implementations of D2.


 I don't understand why there would be any technical reasons why a D1 compiler
 using the dmd front end could not relatively trivially upgrade to D2.


 For the most part, the incremental updates I've been doing with GDC have lots
of
 (what turned out to be) trivial changes. Add those changes all up though... :~)


 I can't think of any back end changes necessary to support D2, other
 than some trivial changes to the symbolic debug info, which are not
 strictly necessary.


 The only feature I've come across that looks set to me (finally) making
changes to
 the backed are with implementing in/out contract inheritance, but that's a D1
 feature too...


 Additionally, if the LDC or GDC teams have suggestions on changes to the front
 end that will make their work easier, I'm not hard to find!


 In a month, the GDC project may be in such a position (up to date + stable)
that I
 will likely do so.


I wonder what we can do about increasing GDC's exposure. One common 
pattern is that people look for GDC, find the defunct version, and 
conclude that there's no work on it.

Andrei
Nov 01 2010
next sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s article

 On 11/1/10 3:26 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 digitalmars.com)'s article

 dsimcha wrote:

 In the bigger picture, the only usable D2 implementation is DMD.  This isn't so
 bad, as non-reference implementations always take awhile to catch up.








Jython, for

 example, is still back on Python 2.5.  However, it would be nice if there were
 multiple *usable* implementations of D2.


 I don't understand why there would be any technical reasons why a D1 compiler
 using the dmd front end could not relatively trivially upgrade to D2.


 For the most part, the incremental updates I've been doing with GDC have lots
of
 (what turned out to be) trivial changes. Add those changes all up though... :~)


 I can't think of any back end changes necessary to support D2, other
 than some trivial changes to the symbolic debug info, which are not
 strictly necessary.


 The only feature I've come across that looks set to me (finally) making
changes to
 the backed are with implementing in/out contract inheritance, but that's a D1
 feature too...


 Additionally, if the LDC or GDC teams have suggestions on changes to the front
 end that will make their work easier, I'm not hard to find!


 In a month, the GDC project may be in such a position (up to date + stable)
that I
 will likely do so.


 I wonder what we can do about increasing GDC's exposure. One common
 pattern is that people look for GDC, find the defunct version, and
 conclude that there's no work on it.
 Andrei


I'm not sure how reachable David is, though someone mentioned that Arthur Loiret
is an admin at the sourceforge page, to whom I should be able to get hold of
(have
some weak ties through Debian with him) and ask if he could update the main page
to point people in the right direction..

Iain
Nov 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-11-01 11:02:02 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> said:


 On 11/1/10 3:26 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 In a month, the GDC project may be in such a position (up to date + 
 stable) that I
 will likely do so.


 
 I wonder what we can do about increasing GDC's exposure. One common 
 pattern is that people look for GDC, find the defunct version, and 
 conclude that there's no work on it.


Once GDC is current and stable on Mac OS X, I should be able to add it 
to my D for Xcode installer.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Nov 01 2010
next sibling parent bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.org> writes:
why talk about gdc on LDC2 thread?
Nov 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
== Quote from Michel Fortin (michel.fortin michelf.com)'s article

 On 2010-11-01 11:02:02 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> said:

 On 11/1/10 3:26 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 In a month, the GDC project may be in such a position (up to date +
 stable) that I
 will likely do so.


 I wonder what we can do about increasing GDC's exposure. One common
 pattern is that people look for GDC, find the defunct version, and
 conclude that there's no work on it.


 Once GDC is current and stable on Mac OS X, I should be able to add it
 to my D for Xcode installer.


I'm not lavish enough to own one, so I am limited to what I can do there. :~)

I pushed patches for the current apple-gcc (5664) recently. It's based on
GCC-4.2,
so I can imagine no problems with it. Just need someone who can build, test, and
send feedback on progress.

BTW: How is LDC2 doing? I don't think anyone has mentioned just *where* they are
in the whole scheme of things.

Iain
Nov 01 2010
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-11-01 21:18, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 == Quote from Michel Fortin (michel.fortin michelf.com)'s article

 On 2010-11-01 11:02:02 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  said:

 On 11/1/10 3:26 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 In a month, the GDC project may be in such a position (up to date +
 stable) that I
 will likely do so.


 I wonder what we can do about increasing GDC's exposure. One common
 pattern is that people look for GDC, find the defunct version, and
 conclude that there's no work on it.


 Once GDC is current and stable on Mac OS X, I should be able to add it
 to my D for Xcode installer.


 I'm not lavish enough to own one, so I am limited to what I can do there. :~)

 I pushed patches for the current apple-gcc (5664) recently. It's based on
GCC-4.2,
 so I can imagine no problems with it. Just need someone who can build, test,
and
 send feedback on progress.

 BTW: How is LDC2 doing? I don't think anyone has mentioned just *where* they
are
 in the whole scheme of things.

 Iain


If I recall correctly GDC didn't build on Mac OS X. Your patches applied 
successfully but it didn't build. The problem is I could only build GCC 
the Apple way and not the FSF way. If I build it the Apple way the D 
specific code doesn't seem to be recognized.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 02 2010
prev sibling parent reply SK <sk metrokings.com> writes:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 I don't agree. There's very little, almost no, D specific support in the dmd
 back end. It's a C compiler back end. Nearly all the work is done in the
 front end, which should be little more than a cut & paste job for LDC and
 GDC once they are already up and running with the front end.


As a casual observer of D, I've wondered in the past: why isn't D2 and
the D community in general already using LLVM's backend by default?
Seems that compiler back-ends are full of nitty-gritty details and
relatively unglamorous work.  This post makes me think there is
nothing in the way, so why not just rally around LLVM and spend the
time savings on more D-centric issues?
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 10/31/10 10:38 PM, SK wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Walter Bright
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  wrote:

 I don't agree. There's very little, almost no, D specific support in the dmd
 back end. It's a C compiler back end. Nearly all the work is done in the
 front end, which should be little more than a cut&  paste job for LDC and
 GDC once they are already up and running with the front end.


 As a casual observer of D, I've wondered in the past: why isn't D2 and
 the D community in general already using LLVM's backend by default?
 Seems that compiler back-ends are full of nitty-gritty details and
 relatively unglamorous work.  This post makes me think there is
 nothing in the way, so why not just rally around LLVM and spend the
 time savings on more D-centric issues?


No Windows?

Andrei
Oct 31 2010
next sibling parent reply SK <sk metrokings.com> writes:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 No Windows?


My Google-fu shows most complaints related to LLVM on Windows are
actually clang problems.  I also came across this, but maybe old news
here:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/05/27/why-we-chose-llvm/
Oct 31 2010
parent dennis luehring <dl.soluz gmx.net> writes:
On 01.11.2010 05:43, SK wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote:

 No Windows?


 My Google-fu shows most complaints related to LLVM on Windows are
 actually clang problems.  I also came across this, but maybe old news
 here:
 http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/05/27/why-we-chose-llvm/


there is no Windows Exception (SEH) Support in LLVM
Nov 01 2010
prev sibling parent SK <sk metrokings.com> writes:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:43 PM, SK <sk metrokings.com> wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 No Windows?


 My Google-fu shows most complaints related to LLVM on Windows are
 actually clang problems. =A0I also came across this, but maybe old news
 here:
 http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/05/27/why-we-chose-llvm/


On further reading, it seems that the reason LLVM is not the focus is
answered in the previous thread about gcc 4.6.  To paraphrase, the
answer is not just lackluster Windows support, but also that Walter
has a professional and business interest in advancing back-end
compiler technology.  Fair enough.
Oct 31 2010
prev sibling parent reply Christopher Bergqvist <quasiconscious gmail.com> writes:
Would it be possible to organize a "bounty" for having the backend released u=
nder an OSI-approved license?

On Oct 31, 2010, at 22:48, Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> wrote:


 On 10/31/2010 05:12 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

=20
 D is fully open source.


=20
 No, Walter, it isn't, and you should know this by now considering all the p=


ast discussion. All the back-end work you're doing is "source available". "O=
pen source" was coined in 1998 by people with a precise meaning: See http://=
www.opensource.org/docs/osd and http://www.opensource.org/history .

=20
 In particular, free redistribution and derived works are fundamental to th=


e open source definition.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Christopher Bergqvist (quasiconscious gmail.com)'s article

 Would it be possible to organize a "bounty" for having the backend released u
 nder an OSI-approved license?



Vote++.  I understand that this has worked in the past, though I don't remember
off the top of my head what the project was.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?IkrDqXLDtG1lIE0uIEJlcmdlciI=?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
dsimcha wrote:

 =3D=3D Quote from Christopher Bergqvist (quasiconscious gmail.com)'s ar=


ticle

 Would it be possible to organize a "bounty" for having the backend rel=




eased u

 nder an OSI-approved license?


=20
 Vote++.  I understand that this has worked in the past, though I don't =


remember

 off the top of my head what the project was.


	The first one I know of is Blender. I believe there have been a
couple of others since.

		Jerome
--=20
mailto:jeberger free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
Nov 03 2010
parent Christopher Bergqvist <quasiconscious gmail.com> writes:
Yes, I don't want to run Walter into bankruptcy though. ;)

Honestly, I do think it would change the perception of the language in a ben=
eficial way if one could say that the whole reference compiler infrastructur=
e were _unquestionably_ open source.

On Nov 3, 2010, at 21:17, "J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me M. Berger" <jeberger free.fr> wr=
ote:


 dsimcha wrote:

 =3D=3D Quote from Christopher Bergqvist (quasiconscious gmail.com)'s arti=




cle

 Would it be possible to organize a "bounty" for having the backend relea=






sed u

 nder an OSI-approved license?


=20
 Vote++.  I understand that this has worked in the past, though I don't re=




member

 off the top of my head what the project was.


=20
    The first one I know of is Blender. I believe there have been a
 couple of others since.
=20
        Jerome
 --=20
 mailto:jeberger free.fr
 http://jeberger.free.fr
 Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
=20
Nov 03 2010
prev sibling parent reply Juanjo Alvarez <fake fakeemail.com> writes:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:12:04 -0700, Walter Bright 
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Sometimes I feel people are just waiting around, wanting to use D, 


but waiting 

 for someone else to make the first move. It's like a dance club, 


where everyone

With Python what happened for some years was that some companies were 
using it for lots of internal project, but not disclosing its use, 
for fear that the upper management could scream, "whats that python 
crap! That is not java! " I know because I worked on one of them (a 
fortune 100 bank). 

The same happens with lots of other technologies inside Big Corps 
(MySQL comes too my mind too), they are first used by programmers and 
people that know their job in a semi stealth way and later they are 
accepted by the people whose main job is internal company politics 
and can't tell the difference of a ref from a pointer. 

I'm not saying this is the case with D2, I would not use it my 
daywork production code yet (but my play project at home is already 
over 5000 lines of code and the last version of dmd fixed all the 
bugs I stumbled on while developing it), but this is surely going to 
happen a lot once D2 stabilizes.
Nov 01 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Juanjo Alvarez wrote:

 With Python what happened for some years was that some companies were 
 using it for lots of internal project, but not disclosing its use, for 
 fear that the upper management could scream, "whats that python crap! 
 That is not java! " I know because I worked on one of them (a fortune 
 100 bank).
 The same happens with lots of other technologies inside Big Corps (MySQL 
 comes too my mind too), they are first used by programmers and people 
 that know their job in a semi stealth way and later they are accepted by 
 the people whose main job is internal company politics and can't tell 
 the difference of a ref from a pointer.
 I'm not saying this is the case with D2, I would not use it my daywork 
 production code yet (but my play project at home is already over 5000 
 lines of code and the last version of dmd fixed all the bugs I stumbled 
 on while developing it), but this is surely going to happen a lot once 
 D2 stabilizes.


I agree that the most likely route for D is in through the back door.
Nov 01 2010
parent reply Gour <gour atmarama.net> writes:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:15:06 -0700

 "Walter" =3D=3D Walter Bright wrote:












Walter> I agree that the most likely route for D is in through the back
Walter> door.

Why not open-source projects as well?

We're planning to make one, despite advises against (see latest answer
http://tinyurl.com/36yzzj4 )


Sincerely,
Gour

--=20

Gour  | Hlapicina, Croatia  | GPG key: CDBF17CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 01 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Gour wrote:

 On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:15:06 -0700

 "Walter" == Walter Bright wrote:












 
 Walter> I agree that the most likely route for D is in through the back
 Walter> door.
 
 Why not open-source projects as well?
 
 We're planning to make one, despite advises against (see latest answer
 http://tinyurl.com/36yzzj4 )


I appreciate you having the courage to stand up to the critics. I hope we can 
ensure that your choice turns out to be a big win for you.
Nov 01 2010
parent Gour <gour atmarama.net> writes:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:14:09 -0700

 "Walter" =3D=3D Walter Bright wrote:












Walter> I appreciate you having the courage to stand up to the critics.
Walter> I hope we can ensure that your choice turns out to be a big win
Walter> for you.

Well, I learnt that judging someone based on his (its) past is in the
ignorance, based on the present is in passion and seeing the potential
is in the goodness...so, we (just) want to see D's goodness. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour=20

--=20

Gour  | Hlapicina, Croatia  | GPG key: CDBF17CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nov 01 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
 Some (arguably rhetorical) questions:


I know you said "rhetorical" but I can't help chiming in on some of them 
anyway ;) Some of these below may sound, umm, "troll-ish", but they really 
are my honest opinion:


Why did Google push Go rather than use D when they became
dissatisfied with C, C++, etc.


Some of what they've said seemed to indicate lack of awareness of D (at 
best). Other than that: (Speculation): Google NIH, and the Go developers 
believing the same thing they've gotten other's to believe: "Go's made by 
Google and by the same people that made C and Unix (forty fucking years 
ago), so it HAS to be great!"


 Why don't ThoughtWorks use Go and D, but push Clojure and Ruby?


Never even heard of ThoughtWorks.


 How come no recruitment agent cares about D experience (or lack of it)?


Speaking from direct personal experience with those people, recruitment 
agents and others in HR are among the dumbest people in the world. They 
believe and disbelieve things randomly, presumably based entirely on neuron 
misfires. I actually had one tell me "I don't know anything about 
programming, but I'm very good at identifying people who are good at it." 
What a fucking moron. Clearly, this person's real-world worth is about 
$0/yr, but some dipshit actually chose to hire and give that useless excuse 
for a member of society both responsibility and a paycheck. (Which makes two 
useless-moron HR people.)


 Or put another way why do companies just use C and C++
 even ion the face of better alternatives?


I'm sure inertia is a big part of it. Another big part is what I said in my 
reply to Walter: most people are too stupid to realize that big companies 
don't know what the hell they're doing. Or put less contentiously, they've 
fallen into the widespread misconception that business environments are more 
conductive (rather than less conductive) to creating good software than 
smaller informal ones.


 I really would like to see D get some serious traction, but to be honest
 with the way things have and continue to go, I have doubts. Can I be
 proved wrong?


PHP is a piece of shit language made by bedroom coders and no corporate 
backing, but it managed to take over the whole damn web. I'm starting to 
think the problem D faces with adoption is that it *doesn't* suck. If it 
did, people would probably be all over it.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a a.a)'s article

 I'm starting to
 think the problem D faces with adoption is that it *doesn't* suck. If it
 did, people would probably be all over it.


I know you're kidding, but ironically you may be right in a way.  Sometimes D
needs to realize that worse is better.  For example:  The discussion on
arbitrary
cost copy construction.  It's silly to contort half of Phobos to efficiently
support a paradigm that is only used in a few niche areas and is widely regarded
as a questionable practice, especially outside of the C++ community.
Oct 31 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
dsimcha wrote:

 I know you're kidding, but ironically you may be right in a way.  Sometimes D
 needs to realize that worse is better.  For example:  The discussion on
arbitrary
 cost copy construction.  It's silly to contort half of Phobos to efficiently
 support a paradigm that is only used in a few niche areas and is widely
regarded
 as a questionable practice, especially outside of the C++ community.


This is the same argument I used to try and convince Andrei to abandon support 
for arbitrary cost copying.

Similar arguments were made in support of making strings immutable. There were
a 
few cases from C++ where people wanted to poke at their strings. But immutable 
strings have so many huge advantages, that supporting rare (and questionable) 
practices is just not worth it.

Another one was eschewing support for the "mutable" C++ keyword - an escape
from 
const.

And not allowing an object to be both a floor wax and a desert topping (value 
and a reference) which is allowed in C++.

Multiple inheritance.

I think it is a poor tradeoff to make 95% of the users suffer to support the 
other 5% doing stuff they probably shouldn't be doing anyway. And suffer they 
will, C++ has had agonies that just won't go away trying to make that work.
Oct 31 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:iakbog$2ra3$1 digitalmars.com...

 Back in the days of competitive compiler benchmarks, my compiler often won 
 them, up against those well paid huge compiler teams from MS, Borland, 
 etc. A friend told me once that the head of one large company used to yell 
 down the halls how come Walter sitting over his garage can beat you guys. 
 That made me feel good.


Yea, what many people don't realize is that developing within a big business 
environment is *very* constraining, for various reasons. It really is much 
easier for a small informal group to write good software than it is for a 
bigger business environment. But somehow people are brainwashed into 
thinking that having know-nothing managers sticking their fingers where they 
don't belong is somehow supposed to produce better results. Larger resources 
and brainwashing (ie, "brand recognition") are the *only* advantages the 
business environment provides, all the other advantages go to the small 
informal devs.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Yea, what many people don't realize is that developing within a big business 
 environment is *very* constraining, for various reasons. It really is much 
 easier for a small informal group to write good software than it is for a 
 bigger business environment. But somehow people are brainwashed into 
 thinking that having know-nothing managers sticking their fingers where they 
 don't belong is somehow supposed to produce better results. Larger resources 
 and brainwashing (ie, "brand recognition") are the *only* advantages the 
 business environment provides, all the other advantages go to the small 
 informal devs.



Another interesting factoid is that I've been told "you can't possibly do that" 
from the experts before I wrote the first line of the C compiler right up to 
today. Retard's comments are typical.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:01:02 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:


 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Yea, what many people don't realize is that developing within a big
 business environment is *very* constraining, for various reasons. It
 really is much easier for a small informal group to write good software
 than it is for a bigger business environment. But somehow people are
 brainwashed into thinking that having know-nothing managers sticking
 their fingers where they don't belong is somehow supposed to produce
 better results. Larger resources and brainwashing (ie, "brand
 recognition") are the *only* advantages the business environment
 provides, all the other advantages go to the small informal devs.


 
 
 Another interesting factoid is that I've been told "you can't possibly
 do that" from the experts before I wrote the first line of the C
 compiler right up to today. Retard's comments are typical.


Take a look at GCC now. Take a look at LLVM. Compare with DMC. They both 
generate better code than DMC. I simply have no reason to use DMC (or DMD 
when LDC and GDC implement the spec well enough).

I agree the human resources follow the law of diminishing returns. 
However those resources help in so many ways. You can hire marketing 
people, web designers, document writers. D has improved so much after the 
community was allowed to take part in the development. DMD would suck 
badly if Don didn't help you. I don't know how my comments are typical. I 
base my claims on established facts and real world experiences with D. 
The optimal number of developers surely isn't one.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
retard wrote:

 Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:01:02 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 Another interesting factoid is that I've been told "you can't possibly
 do that" from the experts before I wrote the first line of the C
 compiler right up to today. Retard's comments are typical.


 Take a look at GCC now. Take a look at LLVM. Compare with DMC. They both 
 generate better code than DMC.
 I simply have no reason to use DMC


You do if you want to run on Windows. LLVM won't work on Windows. Or use DMC if 
you want to get your compiles to run in a reasonable length of time.

DMC has often been at the forefront of compiler optimizations. Did you know it 
was first (on the x86) to do data flow analysis? First at named return value 
optimizations? First to do instruction scheduling?



 (or DMD when LDC and GDC implement the spec well enough).


I think it's great you have a choice of 3 good D compilers. I find it strange, 
though, when I then hear the complaint there's no 100% GPL version of D.



 I agree the human resources follow the law of diminishing returns. 
 However those resources help in so many ways. You can hire marketing 
 people, web designers, document writers. D has improved so much after the 
 community was allowed to take part in the development. DMD would suck 
 badly if Don didn't help you. I don't know how my comments are typical. I 
 base my claims on established facts and real world experiences with D. 
 The optimal number of developers surely isn't one. 


Your comments are typical in that I've been told for nearly 30 years now that I 
and the people who work with me cannot produce a competitive compiler. Yet we 
have and do. I'd have never accomplished anything if I listened to such loser 
talk. I've made a good living ignoring the constant stream of experts telling
me 
I can't do it.

I remember one journalist who was always telling me that he'd seen the next 
release of Microsoft's compiler, and that it would put me out of business. The 
release would come, and there'd be no decline in sales. So what did he do? He'd 
say "yeah, ok, but the next one will surely destroy your company!"

The world is full of losers and loser talk.

And yes, I wish I could clone Don.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Sunday 31 October 2010 16:02:13 Walter Bright wrote:

 Your comments are typical in that I've been told for nearly 30 years now
 that I and the people who work with me cannot produce a competitive
 compiler. Yet we have and do. I'd have never accomplished anything if I
 listened to such loser talk. I've made a good living ignoring the constant
 stream of experts telling me I can't do it.
 
 I remember one journalist who was always telling me that he'd seen the next
 release of Microsoft's compiler, and that it would put me out of business.
 The release would come, and there'd be no decline in sales. So what did he
 do? He'd say "yeah, ok, but the next one will surely destroy your
 company!"
 
 The world is full of losers and loser talk.


Well, I expect that if you didn't produce a high quality compiler, you wouldn't 
have been out of business ages ago. In many ways, Microsoft's compiler is the
de 
facto standard for C++ development on Windows, so you're going to have to do 
something to stand out if you want people to go with dmc. So, dmc pretty much 
has to be of high quality or it would be dead by now. Personally, I'd never
even 
heard of you or Digital Mars prior to learning about D, and I'm sure that there 
are plenty of other C++ programmers out there in the same boat. Just because
dmc 
isn't bigger than Microsoft's compiler doesn't mean that it's worse. If 
anything, the fact that it's still used in spite of Microsoft's dominance 
implies that it's actually better than Microsoft's compiler.


 And yes, I wish I could clone Don.


LOL.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:

 Well, I expect that if you didn't produce a high quality compiler, you
wouldn't 
 have been out of business ages ago. In many ways, Microsoft's compiler is the
de 
 facto standard for C++ development on Windows, so you're going to have to do 
 something to stand out if you want people to go with dmc. So, dmc pretty much 
 has to be of high quality or it would be dead by now. Personally, I'd never
even 
 heard of you or Digital Mars prior to learning about D, and I'm sure that
there 
 are plenty of other C++ programmers out there in the same boat. Just because
dmc 
 isn't bigger than Microsoft's compiler doesn't mean that it's worse. If 
 anything, the fact that it's still used in spite of Microsoft's dominance 
 implies that it's actually better than Microsoft's compiler.



The compilers have always been different, and appeal to different programmers.
A 
lot like DMC for its fast compile speeds, 80 bit long doubles, DOS support, 
source code comes with it, more personal support, smaller size, etc.
Oct 31 2010
parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 01/11/2010 01:23, Walter Bright wrote:

 ... , DOS support,  ...


DOS support?... That's quite telling.
I can't say I view that as a positive, either for DMC or the people who 
prefer it. In fact, I find quite the contrary.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Nov 24 2010
parent Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 DOS support?... That's quite telling.


It's great. DMC making DOS programs is how I got started. Still
play around with it from time to time. The simple simplicity
of the simple era was just so much simpler.

(I've never used it professionally, but I'm sure lots of people
do. I know a lot local stores still use old DOS programs.)
Nov 24 2010
prev sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Simen kjaeraas wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 

 I can certainly understand the impossibility of actually keeping up with
 bearophile, but I don't think that even he expects that every idea he 
 brings
 up be rushed into D.


 
 Yeah, I always see bearophile's lists as 'maybe some of this could fit in
 D at some point'. Well worth having on the list, but not to be regarded as
 The Bearer of Absolute Commandments. That said, I fully understand that
 Walter could get more tired of it than do I - I don't feel the pressure.


I think a lot of the problem is that quite a few of bearophile's post 
contain very valuable ideas, which are immediately relevant. But their 
impact gets diluted because there's such a constant stream of ideas.
Would be great if someone could do a regular "best of bearophile" post <g>.
Oct 31 2010
next sibling parent reply tls <do notha.ev> writes:
Don Wrote:


 Simen kjaeraas wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:
 

 I can certainly understand the impossibility of actually keeping up with
 bearophile, but I don't think that even he expects that every idea he 
 brings
 up be rushed into D.


 
 Yeah, I always see bearophile's lists as 'maybe some of this could fit in
 D at some point'. Well worth having on the list, but not to be regarded as
 The Bearer of Absolute Commandments. That said, I fully understand that
 Walter could get more tired of it than do I - I don't feel the pressure.


 
 I think a lot of the problem is that quite a few of bearophile's post 
 contain very valuable ideas, which are immediately relevant. But their 
 impact gets diluted because there's such a constant stream of ideas.
 Would be great if someone could do a regular "best of bearophile" post <g>.


What is valueable ideas? Bug reports goto bugzilla. Can some else be
immedeately relevant? Long messages with no patches or D language application
have no value. D2 and TDPL staple now so no new ideas? And 64-bit support and
shared libraries and ARM support becomes before D3? And GUI and IDE? So why we
need new ideas before?
Oct 31 2010
parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
tls wrote:

 Don Wrote:
 

 Simen kjaeraas wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 I can certainly understand the impossibility of actually keeping up with
 bearophile, but I don't think that even he expects that every idea he 
 brings
 up be rushed into D.


 Yeah, I always see bearophile's lists as 'maybe some of this could fit in
 D at some point'. Well worth having on the list, but not to be regarded as
 The Bearer of Absolute Commandments. That said, I fully understand that
 Walter could get more tired of it than do I - I don't feel the pressure.


 I think a lot of the problem is that quite a few of bearophile's post 
 contain very valuable ideas, which are immediately relevant. But their 
 impact gets diluted because there's such a constant stream of ideas.
 Would be great if someone could do a regular "best of bearophile" post <g>.


 
 What is valueable ideas? Bug reports goto bugzilla. Can some else be
immedeately relevant? Long messages with no patches or D language application
have no value. D2 and TDPL staple now so no new ideas? And 64-bit support and
shared libraries and ARM support becomes before D3? And GUI and IDE? So why we
need new ideas before?


Bearophile's posts "I tried to write XXX, and it's hard to do well 
because ..." are excellent. Note that they tend to be more relevant for 
Phobos, than for the compiler.
The links are great, too. There are some of the more obscure languages 
which I'd never have heard of, if not for bearophile.
Oct 31 2010
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 31/10/2010 16:08, Don wrote:

 Simen kjaeraas wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 I can certainly understand the impossibility of actually keeping up with
 bearophile, but I don't think that even he expects that every idea he
 brings
 up be rushed into D.


 Yeah, I always see bearophile's lists as 'maybe some of this could fit in
 D at some point'. Well worth having on the list, but not to be
 regarded as
 The Bearer of Absolute Commandments. That said, I fully understand that
 Walter could get more tired of it than do I - I don't feel the pressure.


 I think a lot of the problem is that quite a few of bearophile's post
 contain very valuable ideas, which are immediately relevant. But their
 impact gets diluted because there's such a constant stream of ideas.



 Would be great if someone could do a regular "best of bearophile" post <g>.


And it would be even better if that someone would be bearophile 
himself...  ^_^'



I must say though, that I disagree that most of bearophile's post 
contain valuable ideas. Please don't construe the following as a 
personal attack, it is not meant to be so, but I often find it's the 
contrary (especially lately). beorophile's main posts usually fall in 
one of these two categories:

* Discuss X from elsewhere: a post not about a concrete suggestion to 
change D, but rather discuss/expose a feature or aspect of some other 
language/tool/paradigm. Posts are often accompanied by a link to an 
external article/documentation/presentation/etc.. The post is usually 
interesting, but they happen often and usually take too much time to 
read and understand all of them(often because of the external links).

* Sugesting a change to D: a post that discusses some actual change to D 
that beorophile came up with.
I often find that with these latter ones, I don't agree such changes 
should be in D, either now or in the future (so it's not just a matter 
of stabilizing D2). Rather, it's because the suggested change is of very 
limited usefulness (has little impact in code, or occurs rarely), and/or 
has a very acceptable alternative/workaround in current D.

A recent example is the "Interfacing C functions with safer ptr/length": 
A somewhat limited use case (interfacing with certain C functions), and 
the alternative in current D code that Andrei pointed out is perfectly 
fine. It is just as safe, just as fast (with compiler optimizations 
enabled), and only slightly more verbose.

Other examples are plenty:

"To avoid a C code bug"
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3847
(issue of limited impact, and its very much a bikeshed issue, no 
consensus that it was actually an improvement, most people actually 
seemed to prefer the current way)

"Ghost fields for Contract Programming:"
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5027
(limited usefulness, current alternative nearly as good)

A comment regarding sugesting an alternative change to deal with the 
problem of covariance in arrays:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2095#c16
(Change would increase memory footprint in arrays and pointers, 
something that is almost certainly unacceptable for D. Plus, change 
would detect errors only in runtime, whereas compile-time checking is 
perfectly possible)

"Safer unions with  tagged"
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5097
(again, change is for a very rare use case, and current alternatives are 
nearly as good, if not just as good)

"Array-bound indexes"
news://news.digitalmars.com:119/ial0qb$1c0a$1 digitalmars.com
(an even rarer use case, of questionable validity, and it's not clear 
the sugested change would actually help with the issue)


...and I could go one with more examples. On the hand, it is hard for me 
to find a recent discussion started by beorophile (or where beorophile 
was heavily involved) that has affected the development of D itself in 
any way, either now or in the future. I'm talking of threads such as these:

"crystal clear()"
Discussing regarding issues around clear(), object destruction etc..

"Proposal: Relax rules for 'pure'"
Don's changes (even though they went as far as 2008).

"We need to kill C syntax for declaring function types"
Again started by Don, Walter said he made a good case for it.

"Ruling out arbitrary cost copy construction?"
Started by Andrei, discussion guiding the future direction for Phobos 
container. A lot of people were involved in the discussion, but not 
bearophile.


"Uniform Function Call syntax for properties"
by Steven Schveighoffer, Andrei agreed there was a problem here and some 
change was desired, although it seemed no one had a sure idea on what 
the change should be.

"duck!"
Started by Andrei. Discussion regarding the future name of Kenji's 
adaptTo template.

"std.algorithm.remove and principle of least astonishment"
A discussion about the semantics of char[] and wchar[], might lead to a 
future change in D, even if it just allowing:
   ubyte[] str = "asdf";


Feel free to correct me, I don't claim to have made a complete or fully 
accurate assessment of all the posts and proposal changes that were 
discussed in the last 3-4 months or so.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Nov 25 2010
parent reply so <so so.do> writes:
 Feel free to correct me, I don't claim to have made a complete or fully  
 accurate assessment of all the posts and proposal changes that were  
 discussed in the last 3-4 months or so.


Sorry but you are a bit harsh here.
If you go back, you'll see some very nice posts of him but recently his  
attitude a little bit different.
This happens to people on D community every now end then, i think it is  
because we are also emotionally attached to D.
I just hope he won't end up like a few others.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Nov 25 2010
parent Architect <smurf vil.lage> writes:
so Wrote:


 Feel free to correct me, I don't claim to have made a complete or fully  
 accurate assessment of all the posts and proposal changes that were  
 discussed in the last 3-4 months or so.


 
 Sorry but you are a bit harsh here.
 If you go back, you'll see some very nice posts of him but recently his  
 attitude a little bit different.
 This happens to people on D community every now end then, i think it is  
 because we are also emotionally attached to D.
 I just hope he won't end up like a few others.


The facts don't lie. I appreciate bearophile's work quite a lot. But let's look
at his accomplishments. I think he wastes his time studying esoteric language
features and working as a "middle man" between two communities.

- He never touches compiler internals - this way he never learns to implement a
language of his own.

- His suggestions are also badly argumented and too abstract to be of any use
in D's development.

- He messes with toy programs and does not participate in big real world
projects, which means that he has no senior/lead developer skills. He can't
really say anything enlightening in these meaningful pragmatic discussions.

- His efforts in language competitions and wikis mostly attract novice users
who get caught by marketing speech

- He is a lone wolf, the social status is really bizarre. A novice ponders why
bearophile wants to help so much. The only sane explanation is that he is a
real weirdo. Likes all other languages (especially python) much more, but still
sticks with D. Why on earth?

Not trying to be rude or anything. Just food for thought 8-)
Nov 25 2010
prev sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter:


 You post lists of features every day.


I hate wasting your time, so please ignore my posts you aren't interested in. I
write those things because I like to think and discuss about new ways to
explain semantics to computers. Most of those things are for discussion, not
for inclusion in D2 (few of them may be included in D3, in the future).

Please don't add any new major feature to D2 before the current features are
implemented and work.

In Bugzilla I have a short list of small things that I'd like to see tidied up,
there is no major (or medium sized) feature among them. Only little but
important things for the general tidiness of a language, like enforcing the
presence of [] in vector operations. Once a lot of D2 code is written fixing
them will be harder.



 It also bothers me that you regularly read feature lists put out by other
 languages, and seem unaware of what D can do.


There are many things I don't know yet about D and its compiler, and from the
answers and corrections I become more aware about D and programming.
In some weeks I may teach the basics of D2 to a classroom in my nation, so the
more mistakes I make & gets corrected in the relative isolation of this
newsgroup, the less wrong things I will teach them :-)

Bye,
bearophile
Oct 30 2010
next sibling parent reply Gary Whatmore <no spam.spam> writes:
bearophile Wrote:


 Walter:
 

 You post lists of features every day.


 
 I hate wasting your time, so please ignore my posts you aren't interested in.
I write those things because I like to think and discuss about new ways to
explain semantics to computers. Most of those things are for discussion, not
for inclusion in D2 (few of them may be included in D3, in the future).
 


Less talk and more concrete solutions. We may need another newsgroup for
useless language discussion. This way Walter and core team can easily ignore
all language discussion and focus on fixing D.


 There are many things I don't know yet about D and its compiler, and from the
answers and corrections I become more aware about D and programming.


You could study without interrupting Walter. The persons in this group can be
divided into three groups:

* the core language ecosystem developers (important persons. don't waste their
time),
* commercial pragmatic developpers (semi-important, waste a bit of their time
as payment for their questions that only benefit commercial 3rd parties),
* hobbyist/school student procrastination group (useful conversation of
languages = bearophile, useless functional programming advocacy talk, n00b
questions).

We should punish the third group more with useless discussion and let the
important persons finish their jobs quick.


 In some weeks I may teach the basics of D2 to a classroom in my nation, so the
more mistakes I make & gets corrected in the relative isolation of this
newsgroup, the less wrong things I will teach them :-)


I'd suggest one thing; if you don't know something, give answer to some other
question. If someone criticizes D 2.0, ridicule their good points. We need more
young developers from other language camps and sometimes a lie at this point
might turn into a gold mine in our all lives later. The students probably
realize later how important choosing D really was (they'll even learn
functional programming with a friendly C style syntax). It's not necessarily
evil to lure them in using questionable methods. If some older teacher is
watching you, you need to be more careful with personal agendas.
Oct 30 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Gary Whatmore" <no spam.spam> wrote in message 
news:iaiqtd$2r5j$1 digitalmars.com...

 We should punish the third group more with useless discussion and let the 
 important persons finish their jobs quick.

 It's not necessarily evil to lure them in using questionable methods.


Yes, we should just be a bunch of giant assholes.
Oct 30 2010
prev sibling parent Jimmy Cao <jcao219 gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Gary Whatmore <no spam.spam> wrote:


 You could study without interrupting Walter.


Interrupting?  Breaks do interrupt work time, but that's the point.
We all need a break, and so does Walter once in a while (I hope).



 We should punish the third group more with useless discussion and let the
 important persons finish their jobs quick.


Once again, I think you are delusional in thinking that the Important
Persons are like machines, working on their jobs in such a way that this
discussion is punishing and inhibitive.

The ML is leisure, we talk leisurely in discussions of all sorts.  Am I not
correct?


Anyways, I think it's very wrong to suggest that these suggestions by
bearophile are "unwanted."
We can discuss them, and perhaps, one or two of them will stand out from the
others because they are truly fantastic ideas.  The goal is for D to get the
job done, but remember that we always can have small improvements along the
way.

Every feature bearophile brings up is just a little taste here and there
that we can just consider and ponder for a bit, and move on.
Oct 30 2010
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
On 31/10/2010 02:47, bearophile wrote:

 Walter:


 You post lists of features every day.


 I hate wasting your time, so please ignore my posts you aren't interested in.
I write those things because I like to think and discuss about new ways to
explain semantics to computers. Most of those things are for discussion, not
for inclusion in D2 (few of them may be included in D3, in the future).


And how does Walter (or anyone else for that matter), determine if they 
are interested in your posts or not (or anyone else's for that matter) 
without reading them first?
This is often the case for me regarding posts and threads that discuss 
changes or additions to language features. In these kinds of threads the 
title alone is very little indication of the quality or interest of the 
thread.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
Nov 24 2010
next sibling parent reply Emil Madsen <sovende gmail.com> writes:
On 24 November 2010 21:40, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail>wrote:


 On 31/10/2010 02:47, bearophile wrote:


 Walter:

  You post lists of features every day.


 I hate wasting your time, so please ignore my posts you aren't interested
 in. I write those things because I like to think and discuss about new ways
 to explain semantics to computers. Most of those things are for discussion,
 not for inclusion in D2 (few of them may be included in D3, in the future).


 And how does Walter (or anyone else for that matter), determine if they are
 interested in your posts or not (or anyone else's for that matter) without
 reading them first?
 This is often the case for me regarding posts and threads that discuss
 changes or additions to language features. In these kinds of threads the
 title alone is very little indication of the quality or interest of the
 thread.


 --
 Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer


I must say; I think bearophile usually brings up some good issues, and
things to discuss, and I do like reading his posts. - About not being
interrested in reading his posts, really if you dont wanna read posts, why
are you on a mailing list? - if its the amount thats the issue, then find
some community with low activity instead >.<'.

And yea, bearophile brings up a lot of nice features, and Walter would never
have a chance to implement all of them himself, which might be good, if
everything bearophile suggests got into the language, we would have this
major language noone would ever be able to learn, nor use. However, if we
succeed in implementing the best ideas I do think we'll end up with a superb
output, however I do think we need to discuss a lot of issues and features,
and thats why I love bearophiles postings, simply because it gives the
community a lot to discuss.

Just my opinion. - But I do think discussing a lot of features, even the
ones not really related, will help out the language in the end.

-- 
// Yours sincerely
// Emil 'Skeen' Madsen



 Nov 24 2010



  parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>  writes:


Emil Madsen wrote:

 And yea, bearophile brings up a lot of nice features, and Walter would 
 never have a chance to implement all of them himself, which might be 
 good, if everything bearophile suggests got into the language, we would 
 have this major language noone would ever be able to learn, nor use. 
 However, if we succeed in implementing the best ideas I do think we'll 
 end up with a superb output, however I do think we need to discuss a lot 
 of issues and features, and thats why I love bearophiles postings, 
 simply because it gives the community a lot to discuss.
 
 Just my opinion. - But I do think discussing a lot of features, even the 
 ones not really related, will help out the language in the end.


I think bearophile does a valuable service to us by bringing up discussion
topics.

My gripe is when he lists things that he wishes D did when D already does them 
and has for years. Case in point: D imports. It's irksome when he often writes 
from the perspective of assuming that D does it wrong while other languages are 
assumed to do it right. Case in point: design by contract, and his assumption 
that dmd was a primitive compiler that did not do data flow analysis while 
praising llvm's.

My concern about that is that with the volume of his posts, I will miss some of 
them, and people inexperienced with D will presume those mistakes and 
misunderstandings are correct.

I have no issue at all with bringing up factual shortcomings of D, even when I 
disagree about whether they are actual shortcomings or not. For example, it is
a 
fact that D does not check for integer arithmetic overflow. Whether that's a 
problem or not is a fine topic for discussion.



 Nov 24 2010



  parent reply Emil Madsen <sovende gmail.com>  writes:


On 25 November 2010 00:25, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:


 Emil Madsen wrote:


 And yea, bearophile brings up a lot of nice features, and Walter would
 never have a chance to implement all of them himself, which might be good,
 if everything bearophile suggests got into the language, we would have this
 major language noone would ever be able to learn, nor use. However, if we
 succeed in implementing the best ideas I do think we'll end up with a superb
 output, however I do think we need to discuss a lot of issues and features,
 and thats why I love bearophiles postings, simply because it gives the
 community a lot to discuss.

 Just my opinion. - But I do think discussing a lot of features, even the
 ones not really related, will help out the language in the end.


 I think bearophile does a valuable service to us by bringing up discussion
 topics.

 My gripe is when he lists things that he wishes D did when D already does
 them and has for years. Case in point: D imports. It's irksome when he often
 writes from the perspective of assuming that D does it wrong while other
 languages are assumed to do it right. Case in point: design by contract, and
 his assumption that dmd was a primitive compiler that did not do data flow
 analysis while praising llvm's.

 My concern about that is that with the volume of his posts, I will miss
 some of them, and people inexperienced with D will presume those mistakes
 and misunderstandings are correct.

 I have no issue at all with bringing up factual shortcomings of D, even
 when I disagree about whether they are actual shortcomings or not. For
 example, it is a fact that D does not check for integer arithmetic overflow.
 Whether that's a problem or not is a fine topic for discussion.


Well I must agree with you, atleast on the part, about how he sometimes
seems negative about what dmd does. - And that tune, is obviously not nice
towards you, as your the one doing the hard work, but lets just try to
remember, that bearophile just wants D to be the best, eh?

What really is an issue for me currently, is that the mailing list seems
like its going a tad into war, that is between you and bearophile sometimes;
wheres you should instead be joining forces. - As it seems to me, D got
about the best compiler writer out there, and one of the best feature
requester/discusser :).

And I can understand you concerns, about how newcomers to D, might react
reading about all of these things bearophile complains about, and wants to
change/add.

- Just curious, how much of your time do you spend on reading this mailing
list a day?

(Excuse my somewhat bad english tonight (its 3am))

-- 
// Yours sincerely
// Emil 'Skeen' Madsen



 Nov 24 2010



  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


== Quote from Emil Madsen (sovende gmail.com)'s article

 --90e6ba539f3ee121840495d5033f
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 On 25 November 2010 00:25, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Emil Madsen wrote:


 And yea, bearophile brings up a lot of nice features, and Walter would
 never have a chance to implement all of them himself, which might be good,
 if everything bearophile suggests got into the language, we would have this
 major language noone would ever be able to learn, nor use. However, if we
 succeed in implementing the best ideas I do think we'll end up with a superb
 output, however I do think we need to discuss a lot of issues and features,
 and thats why I love bearophiles postings, simply because it gives the
 community a lot to discuss.

 Just my opinion. - But I do think discussing a lot of features, even the
 ones not really related, will help out the language in the end.


 I think bearophile does a valuable service to us by bringing up discussion
 topics.

 My gripe is when he lists things that he wishes D did when D already does
 them and has for years. Case in point: D imports. It's irksome when he often
 writes from the perspective of assuming that D does it wrong while other
 languages are assumed to do it right. Case in point: design by contract, and
 his assumption that dmd was a primitive compiler that did not do data flow
 analysis while praising llvm's.

 My concern about that is that with the volume of his posts, I will miss
 some of them, and people inexperienced with D will presume those mistakes
 and misunderstandings are correct.

 I have no issue at all with bringing up factual shortcomings of D, even
 when I disagree about whether they are actual shortcomings or not. For
 example, it is a fact that D does not check for integer arithmetic overflow.
 Whether that's a problem or not is a fine topic for discussion.


 Well I must agree with you, atleast on the part, about how he sometimes
 seems negative about what dmd does. - And that tune, is obviously not nice
 towards you, as your the one doing the hard work, but lets just try to
 remember, that bearophile just wants D to be the best, eh?
 What really is an issue for me currently, is that the mailing list seems
 like its going a tad into war, that is between you and bearophile sometimes;
 wheres you should instead be joining forces. - As it seems to me, D got
 about the best compiler writer out there, and one of the best feature
 requester/discusser :).
 And I can understand you concerns, about how newcomers to D, might react
 reading about all of these things bearophile complains about, and wants to
 change/add.
 - Just curious, how much of your time do you spend on reading this mailing
 list a day?
 (Excuse my somewhat bad english tonight (its 3am))


He's started peeking an interest at GDC too, which was both amusing and
heartening
to see. I don't honestly think any of his comments can really be seen as
complaints. As has already been echoed, most are very informative, he always
seems
to pick up on things you don't commonly think about. Then again, I can see it
can
get a bit tiring how he almost always starts off with "Language/Compiler <Y>
does
<Feature X>", then goes on to explain that yours doesn't. This is where I see
myself going terse over things very quickly.

I think you wrongly see things as war-like. It's all really just healthy
discussion and competition.



 Nov 24 2010



  parent reply Emil Madsen <sovende gmail.com>  writes:


On 25 November 2010 01:15, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:


 == Quote from Emil Madsen (sovende gmail.com)'s article

 --90e6ba539f3ee121840495d5033f
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 On 25 November 2010 00:25, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>


 wrote:

 Emil Madsen wrote:


 And yea, bearophile brings up a lot of nice features, and Walter would
 never have a chance to implement all of them himself, which might be






 good,

 if everything bearophile suggests got into the language, we would have






 this

 major language noone would ever be able to learn, nor use. However, if






 we

 succeed in implementing the best ideas I do think we'll end up with a






 superb

 output, however I do think we need to discuss a lot of issues and






 features,

 and thats why I love bearophiles postings, simply because it gives the
 community a lot to discuss.

 Just my opinion. - But I do think discussing a lot of features, even






 the

 ones not really related, will help out the language in the end.


 I think bearophile does a valuable service to us by bringing up




 discussion

 topics.

 My gripe is when he lists things that he wishes D did when D already




 does

 them and has for years. Case in point: D imports. It's irksome when he




 often

 writes from the perspective of assuming that D does it wrong while




 other

 languages are assumed to do it right. Case in point: design by




 contract, and

 his assumption that dmd was a primitive compiler that did not do data




 flow

 analysis while praising llvm's.

 My concern about that is that with the volume of his posts, I will miss
 some of them, and people inexperienced with D will presume those




 mistakes

 and misunderstandings are correct.

 I have no issue at all with bringing up factual shortcomings of D, even
 when I disagree about whether they are actual shortcomings or not. For
 example, it is a fact that D does not check for integer arithmetic




 overflow.

 Whether that's a problem or not is a fine topic for discussion.


 Well I must agree with you, atleast on the part, about how he sometimes
 seems negative about what dmd does. - And that tune, is obviously not


 nice

 towards you, as your the one doing the hard work, but lets just try to
 remember, that bearophile just wants D to be the best, eh?
 What really is an issue for me currently, is that the mailing list seems
 like its going a tad into war, that is between you and bearophile


 sometimes;

 wheres you should instead be joining forces. - As it seems to me, D got
 about the best compiler writer out there, and one of the best feature
 requester/discusser :).
 And I can understand you concerns, about how newcomers to D, might react
 reading about all of these things bearophile complains about, and wants


 to

 change/add.
 - Just curious, how much of your time do you spend on reading this


 mailing

 list a day?
 (Excuse my somewhat bad english tonight (its 3am))


 He's started peeking an interest at GDC too, which was both amusing and
 heartening
 to see. I don't honestly think any of his comments can really be seen as
 complaints. As has already been echoed, most are very informative, he
 always seems
 to pick up on things you don't commonly think about. Then again, I can see
 it can
 get a bit tiring how he almost always starts off with "Language/Compiler
 <Y> does
 <Feature X>", then goes on to explain that yours doesn't. This is where I
 see
 myself going terse over things very quickly.

 I think you wrongly see things as war-like. It's all really just healthy
 discussion and competition.


Sure it can get tiring when hes like saying 'Language/Compiler <Y>
does<Feature X>', but while he does so, he also brings up a discussion
whether its something to add or not. - And I must say, a lot of the features
he points out in other language seem like good things :) - however pointing
it out, and being like; 'Why doesn't D do this?', might not be the right
tune, where it should be; 'Would it be an idea if D did this?', and I can
understand why the first tune might seem a tad hard on people like Walter,
when it already does.

About GDC, I think the dmd community should be watching whats happening at
LDC and GDC, they might come up with something good, before we do, eh?

I might be right about the way thing, its just, sometimes people seem a
little bit hostile if you ask me, but that might just me me thats a tad off.

-- 
// Yours sincerely
// Emil 'Skeen' Madsen



 Nov 25 2010



  parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>  writes:


== Quote from Emil Madsen (sovende gmail.com)'s article

 --0015174c37fe0831b20495dd37b5
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 On 25 November 2010 01:15, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> wrote:

 == Quote from Emil Madsen (sovende gmail.com)'s article

 --90e6ba539f3ee121840495d5033f
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 On 25 November 2010 00:25, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>


 wrote:

 Emil Madsen wrote:


 And yea, bearophile brings up a lot of nice features, and Walter would
 never have a chance to implement all of them himself, which might be






 good,

 if everything bearophile suggests got into the language, we would have






 this

 major language noone would ever be able to learn, nor use. However, if






 we

 succeed in implementing the best ideas I do think we'll end up with a






 superb

 output, however I do think we need to discuss a lot of issues and






 features,

 and thats why I love bearophiles postings, simply because it gives the
 community a lot to discuss.

 Just my opinion. - But I do think discussing a lot of features, even






 the

 ones not really related, will help out the language in the end.


 I think bearophile does a valuable service to us by bringing up




 discussion

 topics.

 My gripe is when he lists things that he wishes D did when D already




 does

 them and has for years. Case in point: D imports. It's irksome when he




 often

 writes from the perspective of assuming that D does it wrong while




 other

 languages are assumed to do it right. Case in point: design by




 contract, and

 his assumption that dmd was a primitive compiler that did not do data




 flow

 analysis while praising llvm's.

 My concern about that is that with the volume of his posts, I will miss
 some of them, and people inexperienced with D will presume those




 mistakes

 and misunderstandings are correct.

 I have no issue at all with bringing up factual shortcomings of D, even
 when I disagree about whether they are actual shortcomings or not. For
 example, it is a fact that D does not check for integer arithmetic




 overflow.

 Whether that's a problem or not is a fine topic for discussion.


 Well I must agree with you, atleast on the part, about how he sometimes
 seems negative about what dmd does. - And that tune, is obviously not


 nice

 towards you, as your the one doing the hard work, but lets just try to
 remember, that bearophile just wants D to be the best, eh?
 What really is an issue for me currently, is that the mailing list seems
 like its going a tad into war, that is between you and bearophile


 sometimes;

 wheres you should instead be joining forces. - As it seems to me, D got
 about the best compiler writer out there, and one of the best feature
 requester/discusser :).
 And I can understand you concerns, about how newcomers to D, might react
 reading about all of these things bearophile complains about, and wants


 to

 change/add.
 - Just curious, how much of your time do you spend on reading this


 mailing

 list a day?
 (Excuse my somewhat bad english tonight (its 3am))


 He's started peeking an interest at GDC too, which was both amusing and
 heartening
 to see. I don't honestly think any of his comments can really be seen as
 complaints. As has already been echoed, most are very informative, he
 always seems
 to pick up on things you don't commonly think about. Then again, I can see
 it can
 get a bit tiring how he almost always starts off with "Language/Compiler
 <Y> does
 <Feature X>", then goes on to explain that yours doesn't. This is where I
 see
 myself going terse over things very quickly.

 I think you wrongly see things as war-like. It's all really just healthy
 discussion and competition.


 Sure it can get tiring when hes like saying 'Language/Compiler <Y>
 does<Feature X>', but while he does so, he also brings up a discussion
 whether its something to add or not. - And I must say, a lot of the features
 he points out in other language seem like good things :) - however pointing
 it out, and being like; 'Why doesn't D do this?', might not be the right
 tune, where it should be; 'Would it be an idea if D did this?', and I can
 understand why the first tune might seem a tad hard on people like Walter,
 when it already does.


To paraphrase a famous that best describes my view of things when it comes to
features:


add, but
rather when there is nothing more to take away.''

Regards



 Nov 25 2010



  parent  so <so so.do>  writes:


 To paraphrase a famous that best describes my view of things when it  
 comes to
 features:


 more to add, but
 rather when there is nothing more to take away.''

 Regards


Would that apply to PL design as well?
You actually don't "need" templates for example but their presence changes  
everything.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/



 Nov 25 2010



prev sibling  parent  spir <denis.spir gmail.com>  writes:


On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:39:02 +0100
Emil Madsen <sovende gmail.com> wrote:


 On 24 November 2010 21:40, Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail=
wrote:
=20

 On 31/10/2010 02:47, bearophile wrote:


 Walter:

  You post lists of features every day.


 I hate wasting your time, so please ignore my posts you aren't interes=






ted

 in. I write those things because I like to think and discuss about new=






 ways

 to explain semantics to computers. Most of those things are for discus=






sion,

 not for inclusion in D2 (few of them may be included in D3, in the fut=






ure).


 And how does Walter (or anyone else for that matter), determine if they=




 are

 interested in your posts or not (or anyone else's for that matter) with=




out

 reading them first?
 This is often the case for me regarding posts and threads that discuss
 changes or additions to language features. In these kinds of threads the
 title alone is very little indication of the quality or interest of the
 thread.


 --
 Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer


=20
 I must say; I think bearophile usually brings up some good issues, and
 things to discuss, and I do like reading his posts. - About not being
 interrested in reading his posts, really if you dont wanna read posts, why
 are you on a mailing list? - if its the amount thats the issue, then find
 some community with low activity instead >.<'.
=20
 And yea, bearophile brings up a lot of nice features, and Walter would ne=


ver

 have a chance to implement all of them himself, which might be good, if
 everything bearophile suggests got into the language, we would have this
 major language noone would ever be able to learn, nor use. However, if we
 succeed in implementing the best ideas I do think we'll end up with a sup=


erb

 output, however I do think we need to discuss a lot of issues and feature=


s,

 and thats why I love bearophiles postings, simply because it gives the
 community a lot to discuss.
=20
 Just my opinion. - But I do think discussing a lot of features, even the
 ones not really related, will help out the language in the end.
=20


I completely share these views. +++ the last sentence. (PL design in genera=
l suffers from lack of wide view [I do _not_ mean narrow-mindness, but mayb=
e lack of curiosity, yes ;-)], esp from reproducing misfeatures from the ma=
in designer's best known PL language or paradigm. But it's a long and hard =
task to "un-learn" & re-open one's mental eyes. Design should be choosing f=
rom awareness of alternatives, else it's "eyes wide shut"-reproduction.)


Denis
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
vit esse estrany =E2=98=A3

spir.wikidot.com



 Nov 25 2010