digitalmars.D - Re: Handling constructive criticism
- Homer <a b.com> Apr 16 2008
- Don <nospam nospam.com> Apr 17 2008
- "Scott S. McCoy" <tag cpan.org> Apr 17 2008
- Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> Apr 17 2008
- Neal Alexander <wqeqweuqy hotmail.com> Apr 17 2008
- sambeau <sambeau-nospam mac.com> Apr 17 2008
Walter Bright Wrote:Derek Parnell wrote:The current development model is no longer the best one for a better D.
If you put 100 people working on the D compiler, it probably wouldn't move forward any faster. Take a look at the D compiler progress vs compilers for other languages with teams working on them.
I agree the D compiler is already pretty good. But just 10-20 people working on it would definitely polish D to a new level. Please Walter, I urge you to some how allow more developers on the D compiler. If you can't manage people, you have to elect someone you really trust to take care of it and discuss the key things weekly.
Apr 16 2008
Homer wrote:Walter Bright Wrote:Derek Parnell wrote:The current development model is no longer the best one for a better D.
move forward any faster. Take a look at the D compiler progress vs compilers for other languages with teams working on them.
I agree the D compiler is already pretty good. But just 10-20 people working on it would definitely polish D to a new level. Please Walter, I urge you to some how allow more developers on the D compiler. If you can't manage people, you have to elect someone you really trust to take care of it and discuss the key things weekly.
IMHO, I don't think the compiler is holding D back at all. Languages have had great success with compilers that aren't nearly as good. Sure, there's many bugs to be fixed, but people can already submit patches. That's not a bottleneck. Bigger limitations are in the rest of the tool chain, documentation, and successful major projects. D needs polishing, more than anything else. I'd even suggest that already, too much of the D community spends time worrying about language issues (such as const) when there's far more useful things that could be done.
Apr 17 2008
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 09:53 +0200, Don wrote:Bigger limitations are in the rest of the tool chain, documentation, and successful major projects. D needs polishing, more than anything else. I'd even suggest that already, too much of the D community spends time worrying about language issues (such as const) when there's far more useful things that could be done.
I think this is evidence that a lot of issues still exist. The language needs some polishing.
Apr 17 2008
== Quote from Don (nospam nospam.com)'s articleI'd even suggest that already, too much of the D community spends time worrying about language issues (such as const) when there's far more useful things that could be done.
My worry with issues like const is that if the community is simply focused on development then new features that are potentially not appealing will be added as we'll be stuck with them once D 2.0 stabilizes. Walter and crew are very talented people, but they aren't infallible and neither do they represent an accurate cross-section of the D community in terms of desires or experience. Were I in their place, I'd want as much feedback as I could get. Heck, I do for Tango :-) Sean
Apr 17 2008
Homer wrote:Walter Bright Wrote:Derek Parnell wrote:The current development model is no longer the best one for a better D.
move forward any faster. Take a look at the D compiler progress vs compilers for other languages with teams working on them.
I agree the D compiler is already pretty good. But just 10-20 people working on it would definitely polish D to a new level. Please Walter, I urge you to some how allow more developers on the D compiler. If you can't manage people, you have to elect someone you really trust to take care of it and discuss the key things weekly.
How hard would it be to make something that just translates D 1.0 source into intermediate C/C++ code before feeding it through the users compiler of choice? It would fix object-format incompatibility issues and we'd have a compiler with a real optimizer. Sure its just papering over the issue, but its probably unrealistic to expect that theres going to be several vendors producing D compilers any time soon.
Apr 17 2008
Neal Alexander Wrote:How hard would it be to make something that just translates D 1.0 source into intermediate C/C++ code before feeding it through the users compiler of choice? It would fix object-format incompatibility issues and we'd have a compiler with a real optimizer.
Far better to generate LLVM code
Apr 17 2008