digitalmars.D - Re: project oriented

BCS:
 The c# solution works well if you will *only* develop from the IDE but is 
 a total pain as soon as you need to work with non-language aware tools.


I think Microsoft thinks that an IDE is a part of a modern language. So they
have tried to design a language that almost needs an IDE. Fortress language
looks to need an IDE even more. There are languages (most Smalltalk, and some
Forth and some Logo) that are merged with their development environment.

Bye,
bearophile

May 15 2009

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

bearophile wrote:
 BCS:
 The c# solution works well if you will *only* develop from the IDE but is 
 a total pain as soon as you need to work with non-language aware tools.


 I think Microsoft thinks that an IDE is a part of a modern language.
 So they have tried to design a language that almost needs an IDE.
 Fortress language looks to need an IDE even more. There are languages
 (most Smalltalk, and some Forth and some Logo) that are merged with
 their development environment.


Hmm. Come to think of it, that's not totally unreasonable. One might 
even admit, it's modern.

In the Good Old Days (when it was usual for an average programmer to 
write parts of the code in ASM (that was the time before the late 
eighties -- be it Basic, Pascal, or even C, some parts had to be done in 
ASM to help a bearable user experience when the mainframes had less 
power than today's MP3 players), the ASM programing was very different 
on, say, Zilog, MOS, or Motorola processors. The rumor was that the 6502 
was made for hand coded ASM, whereas the 8088 was more geared towards 
automatic code generation (as in C commpilers, etc.). My experiences of 
both certainly seemed to support this.

Precisely the same thinking can be applied to programming languages and 
whether one should use them with an IDE or "independent tools".

(At the risk of flame wars, opinion storms, etc.) I'd venture to say, 
that the D programming language is created for the Hand Coder. (Meaning 
somebody with an independent text editor (Notepad, vi, Emacs, or 
whatever), and a command line compile invocation.

The opposite might be C# (if I understand the rumors here correctly, I'm 
not familiar with the language itself), or Java, as an even better example.

Java, as a language, is astonishingly trivial to learn. IMHO, it should 
take at most half the time that D1 does. The book "The Java Programming 
Language" (by Arnold and Gosling, 3p 1996), is a mere 300 pages, printed 
in a huge font, with plenty of space before and after subheadings, on 
thick paper (as opposed to the 4 other books published at the same time, 
that Sun presumed (quite right) folks would order together, so it 
wouldn't look inferior in the book shelf.

But, to use Java at any productive rate, you simply have to have an IDE 
that helps with class and method completion, class tree inspection, and 
preferably two-way UML-tools.

So, in a way, Microsoft may be right in assuming that (especially when 
their thinking anyway is that everybody sits at a computer that's 
totally dedicated to the user's current activity anyhow) preposterous 
horse power is (or, should be) available at the code editor.

It's not unthinkable that this actually is The Way of The Future.

----

If we were smart with D, we'd find out a way of leapfrogging this 
thinking. We have a language that's more powerful than any of C#, Java 
or C++, more practical than Haskell, Scheme, Ruby, &co, and more 
maintainable than C or Perl, but which *still* is Human Writable. All we 
need is some outside-of-the-box thinking, and we might reap some 
overwhelming advantages when we combine *this* language with the IDEs 
and the horsepower that the modern drone takes for granted.

Easier parsing, CTFE, actually usable templates, practical mixins, pure 
functions, safe code, you name it! We have all the bits and pieces to 
really make writing + IDE assisted program authoring, a superior reality.

"Ain't nobody gonna catch us never!"

May 15 2009

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Georg Wrede wrote:
 If we were smart with D, we'd find out a way of leapfrogging this 
 thinking. We have a language that's more powerful than any of C#, Java 
 or C++, more practical than Haskell, Scheme, Ruby, &co, and more 
 maintainable than C or Perl, but which *still* is Human Writable.


More importantly, it should be human readable.

May 16 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Georg,

 So, in a way, Microsoft may be right in assuming that (especially when
 their thinking anyway is that everybody sits at a computer that's
 totally dedicated to the user's current activity anyhow) preposterous
 horse power is (or, should be) available at the code editor.


I think that any real programing project now days (regardless of language) 
needs tools to help the programmer. The difference between D and C# is that 
with D you /can/ get away without an IDE and with C# you won't get much at 
all done without one.

 
 It's not unthinkable that this actually is The Way of The Future.
 
 ----
 
 If we were smart with D, we'd find out a way of leapfrogging this
 thinking. We have a language that's more powerful than any of C#, Java
 or C++, more practical than Haskell, Scheme, Ruby, &co, and more
 maintainable than C or Perl, but which *still* is Human Writable. All
 we need is some outside-of-the-box thinking, and we might reap some
 overwhelming advantages when we combine *this* language with the IDEs
 and the horsepower that the modern drone takes for granted.


I think we /already/ have a language that will get there sooner or later. 
D is commuted to a path where that is it's only /logical/ conclusion. 

 
 "Ain't nobody gonna catch us never!"
 


Well, not if we play our hand right. Nothing man ever made is invulnerable 
to man.

May 16 2009

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

BCS escribi�:
 Hello Georg,
 
 So, in a way, Microsoft may be right in assuming that (especially when
 their thinking anyway is that everybody sits at a computer that's
 totally dedicated to the user's current activity anyhow) preposterous
 horse power is (or, should be) available at the code editor.


 I think that any real programing project now days (regardless of 
 language) needs tools to help the programmer. The difference between D 
 and C# is that with D you /can/ get away without an IDE and with C# you 
 won't get much at all done without one.


I can't agree with this. Most of the time I use an IDE for the 
autocompletion, not much for the build-and-jump-to-error stuff. And I 
don't see D being easier with regards to remembering what's the name of 
that function, which members does a class have, in which module are all 
these.

Why do you say that with D you can get away without an IDE and with C# 
you can't? I think you can do the same as in C#, don't use an IDE and 
get away with pretty much everything, except you'll be slower at it 
(same goes for D without an IDE).

Again, this also applies to Java. When I started using Java I used the 
command line and an editor with just syntax highlighting, and made 
programs of several classes without problem. Refactoring was a PITA, and 
I'm thinking it's like that in D nowadays. :-P

May 17 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 BCS escribi�:
 Hello Georg,

 So, in a way, Microsoft may be right in assuming that (especially when
 their thinking anyway is that everybody sits at a computer that's
 totally dedicated to the user's current activity anyhow) preposterous
 horse power is (or, should be) available at the code editor.


 I think that any real programing project now days (regardless of 
 language) needs tools to help the programmer. The difference between D 
 and C# is that with D you /can/ get away without an IDE and with C# 
 you won't get much at all done without one.


 I can't agree with this. Most of the time I use an IDE for the 
 autocompletion, not much for the build-and-jump-to-error stuff. And I 
 don't see D being easier with regards to remembering what's the name of 
 that function, which members does a class have, in which module are all 
 these.
 
 Why do you say that with D you can get away without an IDE and with C# 
 you can't? I think you can do the same as in C#, don't use an IDE and 
 get away with pretty much everything, except you'll be slower at it 
 (same goes for D without an IDE).
 
 Again, this also applies to Java. When I started using Java I used the 
 command line and an editor with just syntax highlighting, and made 
 programs of several classes without problem. Refactoring was a PITA, and 
 I'm thinking it's like that in D nowadays. :-P


An IDE provides for a different and IMO much better work flow than using 
a text editor.
a programmer using a text editor + batch/command-line compiler 
implements a single threaded work flow:
while (not finished) {
   1. write code
   2. run compiler
   3. run debugger (optional)
}

an IDE allows a concurrent implementation:
you have two threads that run simultaneously - a "Programmer" and an "IDE".
the programmer "thread" writes code and at the same time the IDE 
"thread" parses it and provides feedback: marks syntax errors, provides 
suggestions, reminds you of missing imports, etc..

The second approach is clearly superior.

btw, this has nothing to do with the language. For instance, there are 
eclipse/netbeans plugins for C++ and once clang is finished and 
integrated with those, C++ will have the full power of a modern IDE, 
just like Java or smalltalk have.
Of course the language can be designed to make this easier, but it is 
just as possible for non cooperating languages like C++.

IMO, designing the language to support this better work-flow is a good 
decision made by MS, and D should follow it instead of trying to get 
away without an IDE.

May 17 2009

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun:
 IMO, designing the language to support this better work-flow is a good 
 decision made by MS, and D should follow it instead of trying to get 
 away without an IDE.


Do you have some more focused suggestions, then?

Bye,
bearophile

May 17 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

bearophile wrote:
 Yigal Chripun:
 IMO, designing the language to support this better work-flow is a good 
 decision made by MS, and D should follow it instead of trying to get 
 away without an IDE.


 Do you have some more focused suggestions, then?
 
 Bye,
 bearophile


first and foremost, the attitude of people about IDEs needs to be changed.
1st rule of commerce is "the customer is always right", and the fact is 
that the industry is relying on tools such as IDEs. If we ignore this 
fact D will become another niche academic language that no one uses.

second, D needs to update its stone age compilation model copied from 
C++. I'm not saying we need to copy the C# or Java models exactly, but 
we need to throw away the current legacy model.
Java has convenient Jar files: you can package everything into nice 
modular packages with optional source code and documentation.
similar stuff is done in .net.

May 17 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Yigal,

 second, D needs to update its stone age compilation model copied from
 C++. I'm not saying we need to copy the C# or Java models exactly, but
 we need to throw away the current legacy model.
 Java has convenient Jar files: you can package everything into nice
 modular packages with optional source code and documentation.
 similar stuff is done in .net.


NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! (and I will /not/ apologies for yelling) I will fight 
that tooth and nail!

One of the best thing about D IMNSHO is that a D program is "just a collection 
of text files". I can, without any special tools, dive in an view or edit 
any file I want. I can build with nothing but dmd and a command line. I can 
use the the source control system of my choice. And very importantly, the 
normal build model produces a stand alone OS native executable. 

(Note: the above reasons applies to a pure D app, as for non pure D apps, 
your toast anyway as D or the other language will have to fit in the opposite 
language's model and something will always leak. The best bet in that system 
is the simplest system possible and that to is "just text files".

May 17 2009

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

== Quote from Jarrett Billingsley (jarrett.billingsley gmail.com)'s article
 On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 7:15 PM, BCS <none anon.com> wrote:
 second, D needs to update its stone age compilation model copied from
 C++. I'm not saying we need to copy the C# or Java models exactly, but
 we need to throw away the current legacy model.
 Java has convenient Jar files: you can package everything into nice
 modular packages with optional source code and documentation.
 similar stuff is done in .net.


 NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! (and I will /not/ apologies for yelling) I will fight
 that tooth and nail!

 One of the best thing about D IMNSHO is that a D program is "just a
 collection of text files". I can, without any special tools, dive in an view
 or edit any file I want. I can build with nothing but dmd and a command
 line. I can use the the source control system of my choice. And very
 importantly, the normal build model produces a stand alone OS native
 executable.


 file' compilation model will make you sacrifice any of that.  He's
 proposing something else, like a custom object format.  It has nothing
 to do with the way source is stored, or with how you invoke the
 compiler.  Java hasn't destroyed any of that by using .class files,
 has it?
 We already have a proof-of-concept of this sort of thing for D: LDC.
 The LLVM intermediate form is far more amenable to cross-module and
 link-time optimization.


And how about certain metaprogramming things that are otherwise infeasible?  To
me, the lack of ability to use templates to add virtual functions to classes
seems
like a pretty severe leak of D's compilation model into higher levels of
abstraction.  The same can be said for the lack of ability to get information
about classes that inherit from a given class via compile time reflection. 
Change
the compilation model to something that is modern and designed with these things
in mind and the problem goes away.

As an example use case, a few months back, I wrote a deep copy template that
would
generate functions to deep copy anything you threw at it using only compile time
reflection and a little bit of RTTI.  The only problem is that, because I could
not get information about derived classes at compile time, I couldn't make it
work
with classes whose runtime type was a subtype of the compile time type of the
reference.

May 17 2009

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

So what would you suggest to make the things you mentioned work? That was:
1. templated virtual functions
2. finding all derived classes (from other source files)

The problem is that D wants to support dynamic linking on the module 
level, more or less.

I still wonder how serialization is supposed to work. Yeah, we can get 
all information at compile time using __traits. But right now, we had to 
register all classes manually using a template function, like "void 
registerForSerialization(ClassType)();". What you'd actually need is to 
iterate over all classes in your project. So this _needs_ a solution.

My best bet would be to allow some kind of "module preprocessor": some 
templated piece of code is called each time a module is compiled. 
Something like "dmd a.d b.d c.d -preprocessor serialize.d". serialize.d 
would be able to iterate over the members of each module (a, b, c) at 
compiletime.

(We also could need some C# like attributes to mark transient class 
members and the like.)

May 17 2009

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

== Quote from grauzone (none example.net)'s article
 So what would you suggest to make the things you mentioned work? That was:
 1. templated virtual functions
 2. finding all derived classes (from other source files)
 The problem is that D wants to support dynamic linking on the module
 level, more or less.


Well, if you use dynamic linking then all bets are off.  As long as you compile
the project into a single binary using static linking, though, you're good. 
This
would solve a large portion of the cases.

May 18 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello grauzone,

 So what would you suggest to make the things you mentioned work? That
 was:
 1. templated virtual functions
 2. finding all derived classes (from other source files)
 The problem is that D wants to support dynamic linking on the module
 level, more or less.
 
 I still wonder how serialization is supposed to work. Yeah, we can get
 all information at compile time using __traits. But right now, we had
 to register all classes manually using a template function, like "void
 registerForSerialization(ClassType)();". What you'd actually need is
 to iterate over all classes in your project. So this _needs_ a
 solution.


I'm very interested on any ideas you have for this as I'm planning on writeing 
just smutchy a library. Currently I'm at the "list the problems I see" stage 
and I'll have a post on it some time soon.

May 18 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Hello Yigal,
 
 second, D needs to update its stone age compilation model copied from
 C++. I'm not saying we need to copy the C# or Java models exactly, but
 we need to throw away the current legacy model.
 Java has convenient Jar files: you can package everything into nice
 modular packages with optional source code and documentation.
 similar stuff is done in .net.


 NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! (and I will /not/ apologies for yelling) I will fight 
 that tooth and nail!
 
 One of the best thing about D IMNSHO is that a D program is "just a 
 collection of text files". I can, without any special tools, dive in an 
 view or edit any file I want. I can build with nothing but dmd and a 
 command line. I can use the the source control system of my choice. And 
 very importantly, the normal build model produces a stand alone OS 
 native executable.
 (Note: the above reasons applies to a pure D app, as for non pure D 
 apps, your toast anyway as D or the other language will have to fit in 
 the opposite language's model and something will always leak. The best 
 bet in that system is the simplest system possible and that to is "just 
 text files".
 
 


hmm. that is *not* what I was suggesting.
I was discussing the compilation model and the object file problems.
D promises link-time compatibility with C but that's bullshit - you 
can't link on windows obj files for C and object files for D _unless_ 
you use the same compiler vendor (DMD & DMC) or you use some conversion 
tool and that doesn't always work.
obj files are arcane. each Platform has its own format and some 
platforms have more than one format (windows).
compare to Java where your class files will run on any machine.

I'm not suggesting coping Java's model letter for letter or using a VM 
either, but rather using a better representation.

one other thing, this thread discusses also the VS project files. This 
is completely irrelevant. those XML files are VS specific and their 
complexity is MS' problem. Nothing prevents a developer from using 
different build tools like make, rake or scons with their C# sources 
since VS comes with a command line compiler. the issue is not the build 
tool but rather the compilation model itself.

May 17 2009

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 BCS wrote:
 Hello Yigal,

 second, D needs to update its stone age compilation model copied from
 C++. I'm not saying we need to copy the C# or Java models exactly, but
 we need to throw away the current legacy model.
 Java has convenient Jar files: you can package everything into nice
 modular packages with optional source code and documentation.
 similar stuff is done in .net.


 NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! (and I will /not/ apologies for yelling) I will 
 fight that tooth and nail!

 One of the best thing about D IMNSHO is that a D program is "just a 
 collection of text files". I can, without any special tools, dive in 
 an view or edit any file I want. I can build with nothing but dmd and 
 a command line. I can use the the source control system of my choice. 
 And very importantly, the normal build model produces a stand alone OS 
 native executable.
 (Note: the above reasons applies to a pure D app, as for non pure D 
 apps, your toast anyway as D or the other language will have to fit in 
 the opposite language's model and something will always leak. The best 
 bet in that system is the simplest system possible and that to is 
 "just text files".


 hmm. that is *not* what I was suggesting.
 I was discussing the compilation model and the object file problems.
 D promises link-time compatibility with C but that's bullshit - you 
 can't link on windows obj files for C and object files for D _unless_ 
 you use the same compiler vendor (DMD & DMC) or you use some conversion 
 tool and that doesn't always work.


Just because it doesn't work on your shitty (SCNR) platform, it doesn't 
mean it's wrong. On Unix, there's a single ABI for C, and linking Just 
Works (TM).

But I kind of agree. The most useful thing about compiling each module 
to an object file is to enable separate compilation. But this is 
useless: it doesn't work because of bugs, it doesn't "scale" (because a 
single module is likely to have way too many transitive dependencies).

 I'm not suggesting coping Java's model letter for letter or using a VM 
 either, but rather using a better representation.


Ew, that's even worse. Java's model is right out retarded.

I'd just compile a D project to a single (classic) object file. That 
would preserve C compatibility. Because the compiler knows _all_ D 
modules at compilation, we could enable some spiffy stuff, like virtual 
template functions or inter-procedural optimization.

May 17 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

grauzone wrote:
 
 Just because it doesn't work on your shitty (SCNR) platform, it doesn't 
 mean it's wrong. On Unix, there's a single ABI for C, and linking Just 
 Works (TM).


do YOU want D to succeed?
that shitty platform is 90% of the market.
 
 But I kind of agree. The most useful thing about compiling each module 
 to an object file is to enable separate compilation. But this is 
 useless: it doesn't work because of bugs, it doesn't "scale" (because a 
 single module is likely to have way too many transitive dependencies).
 
 I'm not suggesting coping Java's model letter for letter or using a VM 
 either, but rather using a better representation.


 Ew, that's even worse. Java's model is right out retarded.
 
 I'd just compile a D project to a single (classic) object file. That 
 would preserve C compatibility. Because the compiler knows _all_ D 
 modules at compilation, we could enable some spiffy stuff, like virtual 
 template functions or inter-procedural optimization.


Instead of compiling per module, it should be more course grained like 
on the package/project level. in C# you can compile a single file and 
get a "module" file (IIRC), but that's a rare thing. usually you work 
with assemblies.

May 18 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 grauzone wrote:
 Just because it doesn't work on your shitty (SCNR) platform, it 
 doesn't mean it's wrong. On Unix, there's a single ABI for C, and 
 linking Just Works (TM).


 do YOU want D to succeed?
 that shitty platform is 90% of the market.
 But I kind of agree. The most useful thing about compiling each module 
 to an object file is to enable separate compilation. But this is 
 useless: it doesn't work because of bugs, it doesn't "scale" (because 
 a single module is likely to have way too many transitive dependencies).

 I'm not suggesting coping Java's model letter for letter or using a 
 VM either, but rather using a better representation.


 Ew, that's even worse. Java's model is right out retarded.

 I'd just compile a D project to a single (classic) object file. That 
 would preserve C compatibility. Because the compiler knows _all_ D 
 modules at compilation, we could enable some spiffy stuff, like 
 virtual template functions or inter-procedural optimization.


 Instead of compiling per module, it should be more course grained like 
 on the package/project level. in C# you can compile a single file and 
 get a "module" file (IIRC), but that's a rare thing. usually you work 
 with assemblies.
 


for C link-time compatibility you need to be able to _read_ C object 
files and link them to your executable. you gain little from the ability 
to _write_ object files.
if you want to do a reverse integration (use D code in your C project) 
you can and IMO should have created a library anyway instead of using 
object files and the compiler should allow this as a separate option via 
a flag, e.g. --make-so or whatever

May 18 2009

Rainer Deyke <rainerd eldwood.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 oh, I forgot my last point:
 for C link-time compatibility you need to be able to _read_ C object
 files and link them to your executable. you gain little from the ability
 to _write_ object files.


You can transitivity.  Two compilers for different languages that both
produce C object files can link to each other; two compiler that can
only read C object files cannot.

 if you want to do a reverse integration (use D code in your C project)
 you can and IMO should have created a library anyway instead of using
 object files and the compiler should allow this as a separate option via
 a flag, e.g. --make-so or whatever


If you can read and write compatible library files, you don't need to
read or write compatible object files, since library files can take the
place of object files.


-- 
Rainer Deyke - rainerd eldwood.com

May 18 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

Rainer Deyke wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 oh, I forgot my last point:
 for C link-time compatibility you need to be able to _read_ C object
 files and link them to your executable. you gain little from the ability
 to _write_ object files.


 You can transitivity.  Two compilers for different languages that both
 produce C object files can link to each other; two compiler that can
 only read C object files cannot.


good point.

 
 if you want to do a reverse integration (use D code in your C project)
 you can and IMO should have created a library anyway instead of using
 object files and the compiler should allow this as a separate option via
 a flag, e.g. --make-so or whatever


 If you can read and write compatible library files, you don't need to
 read or write compatible object files, since library files can take the
 place of object files.
 
 


that's even better. just allow 2-way usage of C libs and that's it. no 
need to support the C object file formats directly.

May 18 2009

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 Rainer Deyke wrote:
 ...

 If you can read and write compatible library files, you don't need to
 read or write compatible object files, since library files can take the
 place of object files.


 that's even better. just allow 2-way usage of C libs and that's it. no
 need to support the C object file formats directly.


Ummm... IIRC, an .a file is just an archive of .o files.  A .lib file in
Windows is something similar.

If you want to support C libraries, you need to support the object file
format as well.

  -- Daniel

May 19 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Yigal,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Hello Yigal,
 
 second, D needs to update its stone age compilation model copied
 from
 C++. I'm not saying we need to copy the C# or Java models exactly,
 but
 we need to throw away the current legacy model.
 Java has convenient Jar files: you can package everything into nice
 modular packages with optional source code and documentation.
 similar stuff is done in .net.


 fight that tooth and nail!
 
 One of the best thing about D IMNSHO is that a D program is "just a
 collection of text files". I can, without any special tools, dive in an
 view or edit any file I want. I can build with nothing but dmd and a
 command line. I can use the the source control system of my choice. And
 very importantly, the normal build model produces a stand alone OS
 native executable.
 (Note: the above reasons applies to a pure D app, as for non pure D
 apps, your toast anyway as D or the other language will have to fit in
 the opposite language's model and something will always leak. The best
 bet in that system is the simplest system possible and that to is "just
 text files".


 hmm. that is *not* what I was suggesting.
 I was discussing the compilation model and the object file problems.
 D promises link-time compatibility with C but that's bullshit - you
 can't link on windows obj files for C and object files for D _unless_
 you use the same compiler vendor (DMD & DMC) or you use some
 conversion tool and that doesn't always work.


aside from the CGG stack I'm not sure anyone can in general. But this is 
getting to be a minor point as VS/GCC are the only compilers I've ever seen 
used on on windows.

 one other thing, this thread discusses also the VS project files. This
 is completely irrelevant. those XML files are VS specific and their
 complexity is MS' problem. Nothing prevents a developer from using
 different build tools like make, rake or scons with their C# sources
 since VS comes with a command line compiler. the issue is not the
 build tool but rather the compilation model itself.


I think you are in error here as the c# files don't contain enough information 
for the compiler to know where to resolve symbols. You might be able to get 
away with throwing every single .cs/.dll/whatever file in the project at 
the compiler all at once. (Now if you want to talk about archaic!) Aside 
from that, how can it find meta-data for your types?

May 18 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 one other thing, this thread discusses also the VS project files. This
 is completely irrelevant. those XML files are VS specific and their
 complexity is MS' problem. Nothing prevents a developer from using
 different build tools like make, rake or scons with their C# sources
 since VS comes with a command line compiler. the issue is not the
 build tool but rather the compilation model itself.


 I think you are in error here as the c# files don't contain enough 
 information for the compiler to know where to resolve symbols. You might 
 be able to get away with throwing every single .cs/.dll/whatever file in 
 the project at the compiler all at once. (Now if you want to talk about 
 archaic!) Aside from that, how can it find meta-data for your types?
 


saw this in Scons last time I looked.

May 18 2009

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 BCS wrote:
 one other thing, this thread discusses also the VS project files. This
 is completely irrelevant. those XML files are VS specific and their
 complexity is MS' problem. Nothing prevents a developer from using
 different build tools like make, rake or scons with their C# sources
 since VS comes with a command line compiler. the issue is not the
 build tool but rather the compilation model itself.


 I think you are in error here as the c# files don't contain enough
 information for the compiler to know where to resolve symbols. You
 might be able to get away with throwing every single .cs/.dll/whatever
 file in the project at the compiler all at once. (Now if you want to
 talk about archaic!) Aside from that, how can it find meta-data for
 your types?


 saw this in Scons last time I looked.


Maybe you should back up your statements instead of just guessing.

http://www.scons.org/wiki/CsharpBuilder

Oh look, you have to list all the source files because C# source files
*do not contain enough information*.

A C# source file containing "using Foo.Bar;" tells you exactly ZERO
about what other files it depends on.

  -- Daniel

May 19 2009

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Daniel,

 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 
 BCS wrote:
 
 one other thing, this thread discusses also the VS project files.
 This is completely irrelevant. those XML files are VS specific and
 their complexity is MS' problem. Nothing prevents a developer from
 using different build tools like make, rake or scons with their C#
 sources since VS comes with a command line compiler. the issue is
 not the build tool but rather the compilation model itself.
 


 information for the compiler to know where to resolve symbols. You
 might be able to get away with throwing every single
 .cs/.dll/whatever file in the project at the compiler all at once.
 (Now if you want to talk about archaic!) Aside from that, how can it
 find meta-data for your types?
 


 I saw this in Scons last time I looked.
 


 
 http://www.scons.org/wiki/CsharpBuilder
 
 Oh look, you have to list all the source files because C# source files
 *do not contain enough information*.
 
 A C# source file containing "using Foo.Bar;" tells you exactly ZERO
 about what other files it depends on.
 
 -- Daniel
 


Exactly. The only practical way to deal with C# is an IDE or build system 
of some kind that is aware of C#. You /can/ deal with it by hand but IMHO 
that would be about half way from D to using C without even a make file or 
build script.

May 19 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Reply to Daniel,
 
 Yigal Chripun wrote:

 BCS wrote:

 one other thing, this thread discusses also the VS project files.
 This is completely irrelevant. those XML files are VS specific and
 their complexity is MS' problem. Nothing prevents a developer from
 using different build tools like make, rake or scons with their C#
 sources since VS comes with a command line compiler. the issue is
 not the build tool but rather the compilation model itself.


 information for the compiler to know where to resolve symbols. You
 might be able to get away with throwing every single
 .cs/.dll/whatever file in the project at the compiler all at once.
 (Now if you want to talk about archaic!) Aside from that, how can it
 find meta-data for your types?


 I saw this in Scons last time I looked.



 http://www.scons.org/wiki/CsharpBuilder

 Oh look, you have to list all the source files because C# source files
 *do not contain enough information*.

 A C# source file containing "using Foo.Bar;" tells you exactly ZERO
 about what other files it depends on.

 -- Daniel


 Exactly. The only practical way to deal with C# is an IDE or build 
 system of some kind that is aware of C#. You /can/ deal with it by hand 
 but IMHO that would be about half way from D to using C without even a 
 make file or build script.
 
 


first, thanks Daniel for the evidence I missed.
BCS wrote that a programmer needs to compile all the source files at 
once to make it work without an IDE. as I already said, he's wrong, and 
Daniel provided the proof above.

sure, you don't get the full power of an IDE that can track all the 
source files in the project for you. That just means that it's worth the 
money you pay for it.

you can write makefiles or what ever (scons, rake, ant, ...) in the same 
way you'd do for C and C++. In other words:
if you prefer commnad line tools you get the same experience and if you 
  do use an IDE you get a *much* better experience.
same goes for D - either write your own makefile or use rebuild which 
uses the compiler front-end to parse the source files just like you 
suggested above for C#.

where in all of that, do you see any contradiction to what I said?
again, I said the D compilation model is ancient legacy and should be 
replaced and that has nothing to do with the format you prefer for your 
build scripts.

May 19 2009

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Yigal,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Reply to Daniel,
 
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 
 BCS wrote:
 
 one other thing, this thread discusses also the VS project files.
 This is completely irrelevant. those XML files are VS specific
 and their complexity is MS' problem. Nothing prevents a developer
 from using different build tools like make, rake or scons with
 their C# sources since VS comes with a command line compiler. the
 issue is not the build tool but rather the compilation model
 itself.
 


 information for the compiler to know where to resolve symbols. You
 might be able to get away with throwing every single
 .cs/.dll/whatever file in the project at the compiler all at once.
 (Now if you want to talk about archaic!) Aside from that, how can
 it find meta-data for your types?
 


 think I saw this in Scons last time I looked.
 


 
 http://www.scons.org/wiki/CsharpBuilder
 
 Oh look, you have to list all the source files because C# source
 files *do not contain enough information*.
 
 A C# source file containing "using Foo.Bar;" tells you exactly ZERO
 about what other files it depends on.
 
 -- Daniel
 


 system of some kind that is aware of C#. You /can/ deal with it by
 hand but IMHO that would be about half way from D to using C without
 even a make file or build script.
 


 first, thanks Daniel for the evidence I missed.
 BCS wrote that a programmer needs to compile all the source files at
 once to make it work without an IDE. as I already said, he's wrong,
 and Daniel provided the proof above.


minor point; I said you have to give the compiler all the source files. You 
might not actually nned to compile them all, but without some external meta 
data, it still needs to be handled the full because it can't find them on 
it's own. And at that point you might as well compile them anyway.

 sure, you don't get the full power of an IDE that can track all the
 source files in the project for you. That just means that it's worth
 the money you pay for it.
 
 you can write makefiles or what ever (scons, rake, ant, ...) in the
 same way you'd do for C and C++. In other words:
 if you prefer commnad line tools you get the same experience and if
 you do use an IDE you get a *much* better experience.
 same goes for D - either write your own makefile or use rebuild which



 uses the compiler front-end to parse the source files just like you
 suggested above for C#.
 


where did I suggest that?

 where in all of that, do you see any contradiction to what I said?
 again, I said the D compilation model is ancient legacy and should be
 replaced and that has nothing to do with the format you prefer for
 your build scripts.
 


I think that you think I'm saying something other than what I'm trying to 
say. I'm struggling to make my argument clear but can't seem to put it in 
words. My thesis is that, in effect, C# is married to VS and that D is married 
only to the compiler.

My argument is that a D project can be done as nothing but a collection of 
.d files with no extra project files of any kind. In c# this is theoretically 
possible, but from any practical standpoint it's not going to be done. There 
is going to be some extra files that list, in some form, extra information 
the compiler needs to resolve symbols and figure out where to look for stuff. 
In any practical environment this extra bit that c# more or less forces you 
to have (and the D doesn't) will be maintain by some sort of IDE.

To put it quantitatively:

productivity on a scale of 0 to whatever
c# w/o IDE -> ~1
D w/o IDE -> 10
c# w/ IDE -> 100+
D w/ IDE -> 100+

Either C# or D will be lots more productive with an IDE but D without an 
IDE will be lots more productive than C# without an IDE. D is designed to 
be used however you want, IDE or not. C# is *designed* to be used from within 
VS. I rather suspect that the usability of C# without VS is very low on MS 
"things we care about" list.

May 19 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:

  > minor point; I said you have to give the compiler all the source files.
 You might not actually nned to compile them all, but without some 
 external meta data, it still needs to be handled the full because it 
 can't find them on it's own. And at that point you might as well compile 
 them anyway.


you are only considering small hobby projects. that's not true for big 
projects where you do not want to build all at once. Think of DWT for 
instance.
besides, you do NOT need to provide all sources, not even just for 
partially processing them to find the symbols.
there is no difference between C#'s /r <someAssembly> and GCC's -l<lib>

I don't think you fully understand the C# compilation model -
in C# you almost never compile each source file separately, rather you 
compile a bunch of sources into an assembly all at once and you provide 
the list of other assemblies your code depends on. so the dependency is 
on the package level rather than on the file level. this make so much 
more sense since each assembly is a self contained unit of functionality.

 
 sure, you don't get the full power of an IDE that can track all the
 source files in the project for you. That just means that it's worth
 the money you pay for it.

 you can write makefiles or what ever (scons, rake, ant, ...) in the
 same way you'd do for C and C++. In other words:
 if you prefer commnad line tools you get the same experience and if
 you do use an IDE you get a *much* better experience.
 same goes for D - either write your own makefile or use rebuild which


 
 uses the compiler front-end to parse the source files just like you
 suggested above for C#.


 where did I suggest that?


I replied to both you and Daniel. I think I was referring to what Daniel 
said here.

 
 where in all of that, do you see any contradiction to what I said?
 again, I said the D compilation model is ancient legacy and should be
 replaced and that has nothing to do with the format you prefer for
 your build scripts.


 I think that you think I'm saying something other than what I'm trying 
 to say. I'm struggling to make my argument clear but can't seem to put 
 it in words. My thesis is that, in effect, C# is married to VS and that 
 D is married only to the compiler.


I understand your thesis and disagree with it. what i'm saying is that 
not only C# is NOT married to VS but also that VS isn't even the best 
IDE for C#. VS is just a fancy text-editor with lots of bells and 
whistles. if you want a real IDE for C# you'd probably use Re-Sharper or 
a similar offering.
 
 My argument is that a D project can be done as nothing but a collection 
 of .d files with no extra project files of any kind. In c# this is 
 theoretically possible, but from any practical standpoint it's not going 
 to be done. There is going to be some extra files that list, in some 
 form, extra information the compiler needs to resolve symbols and figure 
 out where to look for stuff. In any practical environment this extra bit 
 that c# more or less forces you to have (and the D doesn't) will be 
 maintain by some sort of IDE.


this is wrong. you cannot have a big project based solely on .d files. 
look at DWT as an example. no matter what tool you use, let's say DSSS, 
it still has a config file of some sort which contains that additional 
meta-data. a DSSS config file might be shorter than what's required for 
a C# project file but don't forget that this comes from DSSS relying on 
rebuild which embeds the entire DMDFE.
in practice, both languages need more than just the compiler.

 
 To put it quantitatively:
 
 productivity on a scale of 0 to whatever
 c# w/o IDE -> ~1
 D w/o IDE -> 10
 c# w/ IDE -> 100+
 D w/ IDE -> 100+
 
 Either C# or D will be lots more productive with an IDE but D without an 
 IDE will be lots more productive than C# without an IDE. D is designed 
 to be used however you want, IDE or not. C# is *designed* to be used 
 from within VS. I rather suspect that the usability of C# without VS is 
 very low on MS "things we care about" list.

May 20 2009

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Yigal,

 BCS wrote:
 
 minor point; I said you have to give the compiler all the source
 files. You might not actually nned to compile them all, but without
 some external meta data, it still needs to be handled the full
 because it can't find them on it's own. And at that point you might
 as well compile them anyway.
 




(BTW: that is only referring to c#)

 you are only considering small hobby projects. that's not true for big
 projects where you do not want to build all at once. Think of DWT for
 instance. besides, you do NOT need to provide all sources, not even
 just for partially processing them to find the symbols.
 there is no difference between C#'s /r <someAssembly> and GCC's -l<lib>
 I don't think you fully understand the C# compilation model -

 in C# you almost never compile each source file separately, rather you
 compile a bunch of sources into an assembly all at once and you provide
 the list of other assemblies your code depends on. so the dependency is
 on the package level rather than on the file level. this make so much
 more sense since each assembly is a self contained unit of
 functionality.


That is more or less what I thought it was. Also, that indicates that the 
design of c# assumes a build model that I think is a bad idea; the "big dumb 
all or nothing build" where a sub part of a program is either up to date, 
or rebuilt by recompiling everything in it.

 where in all of that, do you see any contradiction to what I said?






 be replaced and that has nothing to do with the format you prefer
 for your build scripts.
 


 trying to say. I'm struggling to make my argument clear but can't
 seem to put it in words. My thesis is that, in effect, C# is married
 to VS and that D is married only to the compiler.
 


 not only C# is NOT married to VS but also that VS isn't even the best
 IDE for C#.


Maybe I should have said it's married to having *an IDE*, it's just VS by 
default and design.

 VS is just a fancy text-editor with lots of bells and
 whistles. if you want a real IDE for C# you'd probably use Re-Sharper
 or a similar offering.


Last I heard Re-Sharper is a VS plugin, not an IDE in it's own right, and 
even if that has changed, it's still an IDE. Even so, my point is Any IDE 
vs. No IDE, so it dosn't address my point.

 My argument is that a D project can be done as nothing but a
 collection of .d files with no extra project files of any kind. In c#
 this is theoretically possible, but from any practical standpoint
 it's not going to be done. There is going to be some extra files that
 list, in some form, extra information the compiler needs to resolve
 symbols and figure out where to look for stuff. In any practical
 environment this extra bit that c# more or less forces you to have
 (and the D doesn't) will be maintain by some sort of IDE.
 


 look at DWT as an example. no matter what tool you use, let's say DSSS,
 it still has a config file of some sort which contains that additional
 meta-data.


So DWT depends on DSSS's meta data. That's a design choice of DWT not D. 
What I'm asserting that that C# projects depending on meta data is a design 
choice of C# not the project. D project can (even if some don't) be practically 
designed so that they don't need that meta data where as, I will assert, 
C# projects, for practical purposes, can't do away with it.

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

I'm fine with any build system you want to have implemented as long as a 
tool stack can still be built that works like the current one. That is that 
it can practically:

- support projects that need no external meta data
- produce monolithic OS native binary executables
- work with the only language aware tool being the compiler

I don't expect it to requiter that projects be done that way and I wouldn't 
take any issue if a tool stack were built that didn't fit that list. What 
I /would/ take issue with is the the language (okay, or DMD in particular) 
were altered to the point that one or more of those *couldn't* be done.

May 20 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 in C# you almost never compile each source file separately, rather you
 compile a bunch of sources into an assembly all at once and you provide
 the list of other assemblies your code depends on. so the dependency is
 on the package level rather than on the file level. this make so much
 more sense since each assembly is a self contained unit of
 functionality.


 That is more or less what I thought it was. Also, that indicates that 
 the design of c# assumes a build model that I think is a bad idea; the 
 "big dumb all or nothing build" where a sub part of a program is either 
 up to date, or rebuilt by recompiling everything in it.


C# has a different compilation model which is what I was saying all 
along. However I disagree with your assertion that this model is bad.
It makes much more sense than the C++/D model. the idea here is that 
each self contained sub-component is compiled by itself. this self 
contained component might as well be a single file, nothing in the above 
prevents this.
consider a project with 100 files where you have one specific feature 
implemented by 4 tightly coupled classes which you put in separate 
files. each of the files depends on the rest. what's the best compiling 
strategy here?
if you compile each file separately than you parse all 4 files for each 
object file which is completely redundant and makes little sense since 
you'll need to recompile all of them anyway because of their dependencies.


 
 Last I heard Re-Sharper is a VS plugin, not an IDE in it's own right, 
 and even if that has changed, it's still an IDE. Even so, my point is 
 Any IDE vs. No IDE, so it dosn't address my point.
 


My use of the term IDE here is a loose one. let me rephrase:
yes, Re-sharper is a plugin for VS. without it VS provides just 
text-editing features and I don't consider it an IDE like eclipse is.
Re-sharper provides all the features of a real IDE for VS. so, while 
it's "just" a plugin, it's more important than VS itself.

 So DWT depends on DSSS's meta data. That's a design choice of DWT not D. 
 What I'm asserting that that C# projects depending on meta data is a 
 design choice of C# not the project. D project can (even if some don't) 
 be practically designed so that they don't need that meta data where as, 
 I will assert, C# projects, for practical purposes, can't do away with it.
 
 --------------


What I was saying was not specific for DWT but rather that _any_ 
reasonably big project will use such a system and it's simply not 
practical to do otherwise. how would you handle a project with a hundred 
  files that takes 30 min. to compile without any tool whatsoever except 
the compiler itself?

 
 I'm fine with any build system you want to have implemented as long as a 
 tool stack can still be built that works like the current one. That is 
 that it can practically:
 
 - support projects that need no external meta data
 - produce monolithic OS native binary executables
 - work with the only language aware tool being the compiler
 
 I don't expect it to requiter that projects be done that way and I 
 wouldn't take any issue if a tool stack were built that didn't fit that 
 list. What I /would/ take issue with is the the language (okay, or DMD 
 in particular) were altered to the point that one or more of those 
 *couldn't* be done.
 
 


 - support projects that need no external meta data


both languages.

 - produce monolithic OS native binary executables


executables. I never said I want this aspect to be brought to D.
 - work with the only language aware tool being the compiler




just to clarify: you _can_ compile C# files one at a time just like you 
would with C or D, and the is an output format for that that is not an 
assembly.

May 21 2009

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Yigal,

 BCS wrote:
 
 in C# you almost never compile each source file separately, rather
 you compile a bunch of sources into an assembly all at once and you
 provide the list of other assemblies your code depends on. so the
 dependency is on the package level rather than on the file level.
 this make so much more sense since each assembly is a self contained
 unit of functionality.
 


 the design of c# assumes a build model that I think is a bad idea;
 the "big dumb all or nothing build" where a sub part of a program is
 either up to date, or rebuilt by recompiling everything in it.
 


 object file which is completely redundant and makes little sense since
 you'll need to recompile all of them anyway because of their
 dependencies.


All of the above is (as far as D goes) an implementation detail[*]. What 
I'm railing on is that in c# 1) you have no option BUT to do it that way 
and 2) the only practical way to build is from a config file

[*] I am working very slowly on building a compiler and am thinking of building 
it so that along with object files, it generates "public export" (.pe) files 
that have a binary version of the public interface for the module. I'd set 
it up so that the compiler never parses more than one file per process. If 
you pass it more, it forks and when it runs into imports, it loads the .pe 
files after, if needed, forking off a process to generating it.

 without it VS provides just
 text-editing features and I don't consider it an IDE like eclipse is.


The IDE features I don't want the language to depend on are in VS so this 
whole side line is un-important.

 So DWT depends on DSSS's meta data. That's a design choice of DWT not
 D. What I'm asserting that that C# projects depending on meta data is
 a design choice of C# not the project. D project can (even if some
 don't) be practically designed so that they don't need that meta data
 where as, I will assert, C# projects, for practical purposes, can't
 do away with it.
 
 --------------
 


 reasonably big project will use such a system and it's simply not
 practical to do otherwise.


I assert that the above is false because...

 how would you handle a project with a hundred
 files that takes 30 min. to compile without any tool whatsoever
 except the compiler itself?


I didn't say that the only tool you can use is the compiler. I'm fine with 
bud/DSSS/rebuild being used. What I don't want, is a language that effectively 
_requiters_ that some config file be maintained along with the code files. 
I suspect that the bulk of pure D projects (including large ones) /could/ 
have been written so that they didn't need a dsss.conf file and many of those 
that do have a dsss.conf, I'd almost bet can be handed without it. IIRC, 
all that DSSS really needs is what file to start with (where as c# needs 
to be handed the full file list at some point).

 I'm fine with any build system you want to have implemented as long
 as a tool stack can still be built that works like the current one.
 That is that it can practically:
 
 - support projects that need no external meta data
 - produce monolithic OS native binary executables
 - work with the only language aware tool being the compiler
 
 I don't expect it to requiter that projects be done that way and I
 wouldn't take any issue if a tool stack were built that didn't fit
 that list. What I /would/ take issue with is the the language (okay,
 or DMD in particular) were altered to the point that one or more of
 those *couldn't* be done.
 


 
 - support projects that need no external meta data
 


 in both languages.
 


As I said, I think this is false.

 - produce monolithic OS native binary executables
 


 executables. I never said I want this aspect to be brought to D.
 


Mostly I'm interested in the monolithic bit (no DLL hell!) but I was just 
pulling out my laundry list.

 - work with the only language aware tool being the compiler
 




ditto the point on 1

 just to clarify: you _can_ compile C# files one at a time just like
 you would with C or D, and the is an output format for that that is
 not an assembly.


I think we won't converge on this.

I think I'm seeing a tools dependency issue that I don't like in the design 
of C# that I _known_ I'm not seeing in D. You think that D is already just 
as dependent on the tools and don't see that as an issue.

One of the major attractions for me to DMD is its build model so I tend to 
be very conservative and resistant to change on this point.

May 21 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Reply to Yigal,
 
 BCS wrote:

 in C# you almost never compile each source file separately, rather
 you compile a bunch of sources into an assembly all at once and you
 provide the list of other assemblies your code depends on. so the
 dependency is on the package level rather than on the file level.
 this make so much more sense since each assembly is a self contained
 unit of functionality.


 the design of c# assumes a build model that I think is a bad idea;
 the "big dumb all or nothing build" where a sub part of a program is
 either up to date, or rebuilt by recompiling everything in it.


 object file which is completely redundant and makes little sense since
 you'll need to recompile all of them anyway because of their
 dependencies.


 All of the above is (as far as D goes) an implementation detail[*]. What 
 I'm railing on is that in c# 1) you have no option BUT to do it that way 
 and 2) the only practical way to build is from a config file
 


prevents you to create your own compiler for C# as well.

 [*] I am working very slowly on building a compiler and am thinking of 
 building it so that along with object files, it generates "public 
 export" (.pe) files that have a binary version of the public interface 
 for the module. I'd set it up so that the compiler never parses more 
 than one file per process. If you pass it more, it forks and when it 
 runs into imports, it loads the .pe files after, if needed, forking off 
 a process to generating it.


sounds like an interesting idea - basically your compiler will generate 
the meta data just as an IDE does for C#.
 
 without it VS provides just
 text-editing features and I don't consider it an IDE like eclipse is.


 The IDE features I don't want the language to depend on are in VS so 
 this whole side line is un-important.
 
 So DWT depends on DSSS's meta data. That's a design choice of DWT not
 D. What I'm asserting that that C# projects depending on meta data is
 a design choice of C# not the project. D project can (even if some
 don't) be practically designed so that they don't need that meta data
 where as, I will assert, C# projects, for practical purposes, can't
 do away with it.

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


 reasonably big project will use such a system and it's simply not
 practical to do otherwise.


 I assert that the above is false because...
 
 how would you handle a project with a hundred
 files that takes 30 min. to compile without any tool whatsoever
 except the compiler itself?


 I didn't say that the only tool you can use is the compiler. I'm fine 
 with bud/DSSS/rebuild being used. What I don't want, is a language that 
 effectively _requiters_ that some config file be maintained along with 
 the code files. I suspect that the bulk of pure D projects (including 
 large ones) /could/ have been written so that they didn't need a 
 dsss.conf file and many of those that do have a dsss.conf, I'd almost 
 bet can be handed without it. IIRC, all that DSSS really needs is what 
 file to start with (where as c# needs to be handed the full file list at 
 some point).


you miss a critical issue here: DSSS/rebuild/etc can mostly be used 
without a config file _because_ they embed the DMDFE which generates 
that information (dependencies) for them. There is no conceptual 
difference between that and using an IDE. you just moved some 
functionality from the IDE to the build tool.
both need to parse the code to get the dependencies.

 
 I'm fine with any build system you want to have implemented as long
 as a tool stack can still be built that works like the current one.
 That is that it can practically:

 - support projects that need no external meta data
 - produce monolithic OS native binary executables
 - work with the only language aware tool being the compiler

 I don't expect it to requiter that projects be done that way and I
 wouldn't take any issue if a tool stack were built that didn't fit
 that list. What I /would/ take issue with is the the language (okay,
 or DMD in particular) were altered to the point that one or more of
 those *couldn't* be done.



 - support projects that need no external meta data


 in both languages.


 As I said, I think this is false.
 
 - produce monolithic OS native binary executables


 executables. I never said I want this aspect to be brought to D.


 Mostly I'm interested in the monolithic bit (no DLL hell!) but I was 
 just pulling out my laundry list.
 
 - work with the only language aware tool being the compiler




 ditto the point on 1
 
 just to clarify: you _can_ compile C# files one at a time just like
 you would with C or D, and the is an output format for that that is
 not an assembly.


 I think we won't converge on this.
 
 I think I'm seeing a tools dependency issue that I don't like in the 
 design of C# that I _known_ I'm not seeing in D. You think that D is 
 already just as dependent on the tools and don't see that as an issue.
 
 One of the major attractions for me to DMD is its build model so I tend 
 to be very conservative and resistant to change on this point.
 
 


the monolithic executable case and ignore the fact that in real life 
projects the common case is to have sub-components, be it Java jars, C# 
assemblies, C/C++ dll/so/a or D DDLs.
in any of those cases you sstill need to manage the sub components and 
their dependencies.
one of the reasons for "dll hell" is because c/c++ do not handle this 
properly and that's what Java and .net and DDL try to solve. the 
dependency is already there for external tools to manage this complexity.

May 21 2009

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Yigal,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Reply to Yigal,
 
 if you compile each file separately than you parse all 4 files for
 each object file which is completely redundant and makes little
 sense since you'll need to recompile all of them anyway because of
 their dependencies.
 


 What I'm railing on is that in c# 1) you have no option BUT to do it
 that way and 2) the only practical way to build is from a config file
 


 prevents you to create your own compiler for C# as well.
 


I disagree, see below:

 [*] I am working very slowly on building a compiler and am thinking
 of building it so that along with object files, it generates "public
 export" (.pe) files that have a binary version of the public
 interface for the module. I'd set it up so that the compiler never
 parses more than one file per process. If you pass it more, it forks
 and when it runs into imports, it loads the .pe files after, if
 needed, forking off a process to generating it.
 


 generate the meta data just as an IDE does for C#.
 


Maybe that's the confusion: No it won't! 

That's not the meta data I've been talking about. The meta data that c# needs 
that I'm referring to is the list of file that the compiler needs to look 
at. In D this information can be derived from the text of the import statements 
in the .d files (well it also needs the the import directory list). In c# 
this can't be done even within a single assembly. Without me explicitly telling 
the compiler what files to look in, it cant find anything! It can't even 
just search the local dir for file that have what it's looking for because 
I could have old copies of the file laying around that shouldn't be used.

 I didn't say that the only tool you can use is the compiler. I'm fine
 with bud/DSSS/rebuild being used. What I don't want, is a language
 that effectively _requiters_ that some config file be maintained
 along with the code files. I suspect that the bulk of pure D projects
 (including large ones) /could/ have been written so that they didn't
 need a dsss.conf file and many of those that do have a dsss.conf, I'd
 almost bet can be handed without it. IIRC, all that DSSS really needs
 is what file to start with (where as c# needs to be handed the full
 file list at some point).
 


 without a config file _because_ they embed the DMDFE which generates
 that information (dependencies) for them. There is no conceptual
 difference between that and using an IDE. you just moved some
 functionality from the IDE to the build tool.
 both need to parse the code to get the dependencies.


Again, in c# you /can't get that information/ by parsing the code. And that 
is my point exactly.

 I think we won't converge on this.
 
 I think I'm seeing a tools dependency issue that I don't like in the
 design of C# that I _known_ I'm not seeing in D. You think that D is
 already just as dependent on the tools and don't see that as an
 issue.
 
 One of the major attractions for me to DMD is its build model so I
 tend to be very conservative and resistant to change on this point.
 


 you're right that we will not converge on this. you only concentrate on
 the monolithic executable case and ignore the fact that in real life
 projects the common case is to have sub-components, be it Java jars, C#
 assemblies, C/C++ dll/so/a or D DDLs.


Yes the common case, but that dosn't make it the right case. See below.

 in any of those cases you sstill need to manage the sub components and
 their dependencies.
 one of the reasons for "dll hell" is because c/c++ do not handle this
 properly and that's what Java and .net and DDL try to solve. the
 dependency is already there for external tools to manage this
 complexity.


I assert that very rare that a programs NEEDS to use a DLL/so/DDL type of 
system. The only unavoidable reasons to use them that I see are:

1) you are forced to use code that can't be had at compile time (rare outside 
of plugins and they don't count because they are not your code)
2) you have lots of code that is mostly never run and you can't load it all 
(and that sounds like you have bigger problems)
3) you are running into file size limits (outside of something like a kernel 
image, this is unlikely)
4) booting takes to long (and that says your doing something else wrong)

It is my strongly held opinion that the primary argument for dlls and friends, 
code sharing, is attempting to solve a completely intractable problem. As 
soon as you bring in versioning, installers and uninstallers, the problem 
becomes flat out impossible to solve. (the one exception is for low level 
system things like KERNEL32.DLL and stdc*.so)

In this day and age where HDD's are ready to be measured in TB and people 
ask how many Gigs of RAM you have, *who cares* about code sharing?

May 21 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:

 I assert that very rare that a programs NEEDS to use a DLL/so/DDL type 
 of system. The only unavoidable reasons to use them that I see are:
 
 1) you are forced to use code that can't be had at compile time (rare 
 outside of plugins and they don't count because they are not your code)
 2) you have lots of code that is mostly never run and you can't load it 
 all (and that sounds like you have bigger problems)
 3) you are running into file size limits (outside of something like a 
 kernel image, this is unlikely)
 4) booting takes to long (and that says your doing something else wrong)
 
 It is my strongly held opinion that the primary argument for dlls and 
 friends, code sharing, is attempting to solve a completely intractable 
 problem. As soon as you bring in versioning, installers and 
 uninstallers, the problem becomes flat out impossible to solve. (the one 
 exception is for low level system things like KERNEL32.DLL and stdc*.so)
 
 In this day and age where HDD's are ready to be measured in TB and 
 people ask how many Gigs of RAM you have, *who cares* about code sharing?
 
 


so, in your opinion Office, photoshop, adobe acrobat, can all be 
provided as monolithic executables? that's just ridiculous.

My work uses this monolithic model approach for some programs and this 
brings so much pain that you wouldn't believe. Now we're trying to 
slowly move away from this retarded model. I'm talking from experience 
here - the monolithic approach does NOT work.
just so you'd understand the scale I'm talking about - our largest 
executable is 1.5 Gigs in size.

you're wrong on both accounts, DLL type systems are not only the common 
case, they are the correct solution.
the "DLL HELL" you're so afraid of is mostly solved by using 
jars/assemblies (smart dlls) that contain meta-data such as versions.
this problem is also solved on Linux systems that use package managers, 
like Debian's APT.

monolithic design like you suggest is in fact bad design that leads to 
things like - Windows Vista running slower on my 8-core machine than 
Window XP on my extremely weak laptop.

May 21 2009

Rainer Deyke <rainerd eldwood.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 just so you'd understand the scale I'm talking about - our largest
 executable is 1.5 Gigs in size.


How is 1.5 GB of dlls better than a 1.5 GB executable?  (And don't
forget, removing dead code across dll boundaries is a lot more difficult
than removing it within a single executable, so you're more likely to
have 3 GB of dlls.)

 you're wrong on both accounts, DLL type systems are not only the common
 case, they are the correct solution.
 the "DLL HELL" you're so afraid of is mostly solved by using
 jars/assemblies (smart dlls) that contain meta-data such as versions.
 this problem is also solved on Linux systems that use package managers,
 like Debian's APT.


You have a curious definition of "solved".  Package managers work
(sometimes, sort of) so long as you get all of your software from a
single source and you never need a newer versions of your software that
is not yet available in package form.  I've got programs that I've
almost given up on deploying at all because of assembly hell.  Plain old
DLLs weren't anywhere near as bad as that.

My favorite deployment system is the application bundle under OS X.
It's a directory that looks like a file.  Beneath the covers it has
frameworks and configuration files and multiple executables and all that
crap, but to the user, it looks like a single file.  You can copy it,
rename it, move it (on a single computer or between computers), even
delete it, and it just works.  Too bad the system doesn't work under any
other OS.


-- 
Rainer Deyke - rainerd eldwood.com

May 21 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Rainer,

 My favorite deployment system is the application bundle under OS X.
 It's a directory that looks like a file.  Beneath the covers it has
 frameworks and configuration files and multiple executables and all
 that
 crap, but to the user, it looks like a single file.  You can copy it,
 rename it, move it (on a single computer or between computers), even
 delete it, and it just works.  Too bad the system doesn't work under
 any
 other OS.


Oh man would I love to have that :) I've day dreamed of a system a lot like 
that. One thing I'd mandate if I ever designed my ideal system is that
installation 
/in total/ is plunking in the dir, and removal is simply deleting it. Once 
it's gone, it's gone. Nothing may remain that can in ANY WAY effect other 
apps. That would implies that after each boot nothing is installed and
everything 
is installed on launch.

May 22 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Yigal,

 BCS wrote:
 
 It is my strongly held opinion that the primary argument for dlls and
 friends, code sharing, is attempting to solve a completely
 intractable problem. As soon as you bring in versioning, installers
 and uninstallers, the problem becomes flat out impossible to solve.
 (the one exception is for low level system things like KERNEL32.DLL
 and stdc*.so)
 


 provided as monolithic executables? that's just ridiculous.


Office, I wouldn't mind. Photoshop, it's got lots of plugins (#1) right? 
adobe acrobat, it might as well BE a plugin (#1 again).

 My work uses this monolithic model approach for some programs and this
 brings so much pain that you wouldn't believe.


How exactly?

 just so you'd understand the scale I'm talking about - our largest
 executable is 1.5 Gigs in size.


That's point #3 and I'd love to known how you got that big. (I guess I should 
add a #5: Resource only DLLs.) 

 you're wrong on both accounts, DLL type systems are not only the
 common case, they are the correct solution.


I didn't say that aren't common. I said it's a bad idea IMO. 

 the "DLL HELL" you're so afraid of is mostly solved by using
 jars/assemblies (smart dlls) that contain meta-data such as versions.
 this problem is also solved on Linux systems that use package
 managers, like Debian's APT.


If you ignore system libraries like .NET its self, I'd almost bet that if 
you look at it long enough those systems, from a piratical standpoint, are 
almost the same as installing dll/so files to be used only by one program. 
That is that the average number of programs/applications that depend on any 
given file is 1. And as I all ready pointed out, I'll burn disk space to 
get the reliability that static linkage gets me.

I seem to recall running into this issue with .NET assemblies and .so files 
within the last year. 

 monolithic design like you suggest is in fact bad design that leads to
 things like - Windows Vista running slower on my 8-core machine than
 Window XP on my extremely weak laptop.


If the same design runs slower with static linkage than with dynamic linkage, 
then there is something wrong with the OS. I can say that with confidence 
because everything that a static version needs to do the dynamic version 
will also, and then a pile more.

May 21 2009

"Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, 21 May 2009 23:07:32 +0400, BCS <ao pathlink.com> wrote:

 Reply to Yigal,

 BCS wrote:

 Reply to Yigal,

 if you compile each file separately than you parse all 4 files for
 each object file which is completely redundant and makes little
 sense since you'll need to recompile all of them anyway because of
 their dependencies.


 What I'm railing on is that in c# 1) you have no option BUT to do it
 that way and 2) the only practical way to build is from a config file


 prevents you to create your own compiler for C# as well.


 I disagree, see below:

 [*] I am working very slowly on building a compiler and am thinking
 of building it so that along with object files, it generates "public
 export" (.pe) files that have a binary version of the public
 interface for the module. I'd set it up so that the compiler never
 parses more than one file per process. If you pass it more, it forks
 and when it runs into imports, it loads the .pe files after, if
 needed, forking off a process to generating it.


 generate the meta data just as an IDE does for C#.


 Maybe that's the confusion: No it won't!  
 That's not the meta data I've been talking about. The meta data that c#  
 needs that I'm referring to is the list of file that the compiler needs  
 to look at. In D this information can be derived from the text of the  
 import statements in the .d files (well it also needs the the import  
 directory list). In c# this can't be done even within a single assembly.  
 Without me explicitly telling the compiler what files to look in, it  
 cant find anything! It can't even just search the local dir for file  
 that have what it's looking for because I could have old copies of the  
 file laying around that shouldn't be used.

 I didn't say that the only tool you can use is the compiler. I'm fine
 with bud/DSSS/rebuild being used. What I don't want, is a language
 that effectively _requiters_ that some config file be maintained
 along with the code files. I suspect that the bulk of pure D projects
 (including large ones) /could/ have been written so that they didn't
 need a dsss.conf file and many of those that do have a dsss.conf, I'd
 almost bet can be handed without it. IIRC, all that DSSS really needs
 is what file to start with (where as c# needs to be handed the full
 file list at some point).


 without a config file _because_ they embed the DMDFE which generates
 that information (dependencies) for them. There is no conceptual
 difference between that and using an IDE. you just moved some
 functionality from the IDE to the build tool.
 both need to parse the code to get the dependencies.


 Again, in c# you /can't get that information/ by parsing the code. And  
 that is my point exactly.

 I think we won't converge on this.
  I think I'm seeing a tools dependency issue that I don't like in the
 design of C# that I _known_ I'm not seeing in D. You think that D is
 already just as dependent on the tools and don't see that as an
 issue.
  One of the major attractions for me to DMD is its build model so I
 tend to be very conservative and resistant to change on this point.


 you're right that we will not converge on this. you only concentrate on
 the monolithic executable case and ignore the fact that in real life
 projects the common case is to have sub-components, be it Java jars, C#
 assemblies, C/C++ dll/so/a or D DDLs.


 Yes the common case, but that dosn't make it the right case. See below.

 in any of those cases you sstill need to manage the sub components and
 their dependencies.
 one of the reasons for "dll hell" is because c/c++ do not handle this
 properly and that's what Java and .net and DDL try to solve. the
 dependency is already there for external tools to manage this
 complexity.


 I assert that very rare that a programs NEEDS to use a DLL/so/DDL type  
 of system. The only unavoidable reasons to use them that I see are:

 1) you are forced to use code that can't be had at compile time (rare  
 outside of plugins and they don't count because they are not your code)
 2) you have lots of code that is mostly never run and you can't load it  
 all (and that sounds like you have bigger problems)
 3) you are running into file size limits (outside of something like a  
 kernel image, this is unlikely)
 4) booting takes to long (and that says your doing something else wrong)


5) The most common case - your program relies on some third-party middleware
that doesn't provide any source code.

 It is my strongly held opinion that the primary argument for dlls and  
 friends, code sharing, is attempting to solve a completely intractable  
 problem. As soon as you bring in versioning, installers and  
 uninstallers, the problem becomes flat out impossible to solve. (the one  
 exception is for low level system things like KERNEL32.DLL and stdc*.so)

 In this day and age where HDD's are ready to be measured in TB and  
 people ask how many Gigs of RAM you have, *who cares* about code sharing?


I don't. But my Windows 7 does - it stores lots *lots* *LOTS* of copies of the
same .dll in %WINDIR%\WinSxS so that anyone could use it - and it's size grows
up to 10 Gigs and more!

See http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx for details

May 21 2009

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Denis,

 I assert that very rare that a programs NEEDS to use a DLL/so/DDL type
 of system. The only unavoidable reasons to use them that I see are:
 
 1) you are forced to use code that can't be had at compile time (rare
 outside of plugins and they don't count because they are not your code)
 2) you have lots of code that is mostly never run and you can't load it
 all (and that sounds like you have bigger problems)
 3) you are running into file size limits (outside of something like a
 kernel image, this is unlikely)
 4) booting takes to long (and that says your doing something else
 wrong)


 5) The most common case - your program relies on some third-party
 middleware that doesn't provide any source code.
 


They /sould/ ship static libs as well IMNSHO. Also the same aside as for 
#1 fits here.

May 21 2009

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 What I was saying was not specific for DWT but rather that _any_ 
 reasonably big project will use such a system and it's simply not 
 practical to do otherwise. how would you handle a project with a hundred 
  files that takes 30 min. to compile without any tool whatsoever except 
 the compiler itself?


Make?

And if you're smart, a verson control system. (Whether you use an IDE or 
not.)

May 21 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

Georg Wrede wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 What I was saying was not specific for DWT but rather that _any_ 
 reasonably big project will use such a system and it's simply not 
 practical to do otherwise. how would you handle a project with a 
 hundred  files that takes 30 min. to compile without any tool 
 whatsoever except the compiler itself?


 Make?
 
 And if you're smart, a verson control system. (Whether you use an IDE or 
 not.)


Make _is_ a build tool

May 23 2009

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 Georg Wrede wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 What I was saying was not specific for DWT but rather that _any_ 
 reasonably big project will use such a system and it's simply not 
 practical to do otherwise. how would you handle a project with a 
 hundred  files that takes 30 min. to compile without any tool 
 whatsoever except the compiler itself?


 Make?

 And if you're smart, a verson control system. (Whether you use an IDE 
 or not.)


 Make _is_ a build tool


Yes. But since it's on every Unix since almost 40 years back, it doesn't 
count here.  :-)

Besides, it has tons of other uses, too. One might as well say that a 
text editor is a build tool. You construct (or erect) software with it. ;-)

May 23 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

Georg Wrede wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 Georg Wrede wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 What I was saying was not specific for DWT but rather that _any_ 
 reasonably big project will use such a system and it's simply not 
 practical to do otherwise. how would you handle a project with a 
 hundred  files that takes 30 min. to compile without any tool 
 whatsoever except the compiler itself?


 Make?

 And if you're smart, a verson control system. (Whether you use an IDE 
 or not.)


 Make _is_ a build tool


 Yes. But since it's on every Unix since almost 40 years back, it doesn't 
 count here.  :-)
 
 Besides, it has tons of other uses, too. One might as well say that a 
 text editor is a build tool. You construct (or erect) software with it. ;-)
 


Nope. it does count as an external build tool

May 23 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Yigal,

 Georg Wrede wrote:
 
 Yigal Chripun wrote:




 Make _is_ a build tool
 


 doesn't count here.  :-)
 
 Besides, it has tons of other uses, too. One might as well say that a
 text editor is a build tool. You construct (or erect) software with
 it. ;-)
 


 


OK and so can bash because it can run scripts.

But that's not the point. Neither make nor VS's equivalent is what this thread 
was about. At least not where I was involved. My point is that the design 
of c# *requiters* the maintenance (almost certainly by a c# specific IDE) 
of some kind of external metadata file that contains information that can't 
be derived from the source code its self, where as with D, no such metadata 
is *needed*. If you wanted, you could build a tool to take D source code 
and generate a makefile or a bash build script from it

May 23 2009

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Hello Yigal,
 
 Georg Wrede wrote:

 Yigal Chripun wrote:




 Make _is_ a build tool


 doesn't count here.  :-)

 Besides, it has tons of other uses, too. One might as well say that a
 text editor is a build tool. You construct (or erect) software with
 it. ;-)




 OK and so can bash because it can run scripts.


No, the main purpose of make is to build software. You probably wouldn't 
think to use a makefile to automate converting flac files to ogg files, 
for instance. Or look at bashburn -- it has a user interface (albeit 
using text menus rather than graphics). You might be able to do that 
with a makefile, but it would be seriously awkward, and you'd mainly be 
using shell scripting.

And bash does not have any special features to assist in building software.

 But that's not the point. Neither make nor VS's equivalent is what this 
 thread was about. At least not where I was involved. My point is that 
 the design of c# *requiters* the maintenance (almost certainly by a c# 
 specific IDE) of some kind of external metadata file that contains 
 information that can't be derived from the source code its self, where 
 as with D, no such metadata is *needed*. If you wanted, you could build 
 a tool to take D source code and generate a makefile or a bash build 
 script from it


If you wanted, you could create a tool to do the same with C# source 
code, assuming there exists a directory containing all and only those 
source files that should end up in the resulting assembly. If you follow 
C# best practices, this is what you will do -- and your directory 
structure will match your namespaces besides. But this is not enforced.

May 24 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Christopher,

 BCS wrote:
 
 But that's not the point. Neither make nor VS's equivalent is what
 this thread was about. At least not where I was involved. My point is
 that the design of c# *requiters* the maintenance (almost certainly
 by a c# specific IDE) of some kind of external metadata file that
 contains information that can't be derived from the source code its
 self, where as with D, no such metadata is *needed*. If you wanted,
 you could build a tool to take D source code and generate a makefile
 or a bash build script from it
 


 code, assuming there exists a directory containing all and only those
 source files that should end up in the resulting assembly.


I'm /not/ willing to assume that (because all to often it's not true) and 
you also need the list of other assemblies that should be included.

May 24 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Hello Christopher,
 
 BCS wrote:

 But that's not the point. Neither make nor VS's equivalent is what
 this thread was about. At least not where I was involved. My point is
 that the design of c# *requiters* the maintenance (almost certainly
 by a c# specific IDE) of some kind of external metadata file that
 contains information that can't be derived from the source code its
 self, where as with D, no such metadata is *needed*. If you wanted,
 you could build a tool to take D source code and generate a makefile
 or a bash build script from it


 code, assuming there exists a directory containing all and only those
 source files that should end up in the resulting assembly.


 I'm /not/ willing to assume that (because all to often it's not true) 
 and you also need the list of other assemblies that should be included.
 
 


you can't create a standalone executable in D just by parsing the D 
source files (for all the imports) if you need to link in external libs. 
you need to at least specify the lib name if it's on the linker's search 
path or provide the full path otherwise.
Same thing with assemblies.

you have to provide that meta-data (lib names) anyway both in C# and D. 
the only difference is that C# (correctly) recognizes that this is the 
better default.

May 24 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Yigal,

 C# assemblies are analogous to C/C++/D libs.
 you can't create a standalone executable in D just by parsing the D
 source files (for all the imports) if you need to link in external libs.
 you need to at least specify the lib name if it's on the linker's
 search path or provide the full path otherwise.


pagma(lib, ...); //?

 Same thing with assemblies.
 you have to provide that meta-data (lib names) anyway both in C# and
 D. the only difference is that C# (correctly) recognizes that this is
 the better default.


IMHO the c# way is the /worse/ default. Based on that being my opinion, I 
think we have found where we will have to disagree. Part of my reasoning 
is that in the normal case, for practical reasons, that file will have to 
be maintained by an IDE, thus /requiring/ development to be in an IDE of 
some kind. In D, that data in can normally be part of the source code, and 
only in unusual cases does it need to be formally codified.

May 24 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Hello Yigal,
 
 C# assemblies are analogous to C/C++/D libs.
 you can't create a standalone executable in D just by parsing the D
 source files (for all the imports) if you need to link in external libs.
 you need to at least specify the lib name if it's on the linker's
 search path or provide the full path otherwise.


 pagma(lib, ...); //?


that's a compiler directive. nothing prevents a C# compiler to implement 
this. In general though this is a bad idea. why would you want to embed 
such outside data inside your code? info needed for building your task 
should not be part of the code. what if I want to rename the lib, do I 
have to recompile everything? what if I don't have the source? what if I 
want to change the version? what if I want to switch a vendor for this lib?

 
 Same thing with assemblies.
 you have to provide that meta-data (lib names) anyway both in C# and
 D. the only difference is that C# (correctly) recognizes that this is
 the better default.


 IMHO the c# way is the /worse/ default. Based on that being my opinion, 
 I think we have found where we will have to disagree. Part of my 
 reasoning is that in the normal case, for practical reasons, that file 
 will have to be maintained by an IDE, thus /requiring/ development to be 
 in an IDE of some kind. In D, that data in can normally be part of the 
 source code, and only in unusual cases does it need to be formally 
 codified.

May 25 2009

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Yigal,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Hello Yigal,
 
 C# assemblies are analogous to C/C++/D libs.
 you can't create a standalone executable in D just by parsing the D
 source files (for all the imports) if you need to link in external
 libs.
 you need to at least specify the lib name if it's on the linker's
 search path or provide the full path otherwise.


 


 implement this. In general though this is a bad idea. why would you
 want to embed such outside data inside your code?


Because it's needed to build the code

 info needed for building your task should not be part of the code.


IMO it should. Ideally it should be available in the code in a form tools 
can read. At a minimum, it should be in the comment header. The only other 
choice is placing it outside your code and we have already covered why I 
think that is a bad idea.

 what if I want to rename the lib,


So you rename the lib and whatever references to it (inside the code or
outside) 
end up needing to be update. Regardless, you will need to update something 
by hand or have a tool do it for you. I see nothing harder about updateing 
it in the code than outside the code.

 do I have to recompile everything?


Nope. pragma(lib, ...) just passes a static lib to the linker and doesn't 
have any effect at runtime. (if you are dealing with .dll/.so libraries then 
you link in a export .lib with a pragma or load them manually and don't even 
worry about it at all)

 what if I don't have the source?


It's pointing at a static library so source doesn't matter. If you are working 
from source then you don't need the pragma and what matters is DMD's import 
path (if it is an unrelated code tree in which cases the path can be developer 
specific and needs to be set up per system).

 what if I want to change the version?


In that case you change the pragma. (again assuming static libs and the same 
side note for dynamic libs)

 what if I want to switch a vendor for this lib?


I have never heard of this being possible without major changes in the calling 
code so it don't matter.

May 25 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Reply to Yigal,
 
 BCS wrote:

 Hello Yigal,

 C# assemblies are analogous to C/C++/D libs.
 you can't create a standalone executable in D just by parsing the D
 source files (for all the imports) if you need to link in external
 libs.
 you need to at least specify the lib name if it's on the linker's
 search path or provide the full path otherwise.




 implement this. In general though this is a bad idea. why would you
 want to embed such outside data inside your code?


 Because it's needed to build the code
 
 info needed for building your task should not be part of the code.


 IMO it should. Ideally it should be available in the code in a form 
 tools can read. At a minimum, it should be in the comment header. The 
 only other choice is placing it outside your code and we have already 
 covered why I think that is a bad idea.
 
 what if I want to rename the lib,


 So you rename the lib and whatever references to it (inside the code or 
 outside) end up needing to be update. Regardless, you will need to 
 update something by hand or have a tool do it for you. I see nothing 
 harder about updateing it in the code than outside the code.
 
 do I have to recompile everything?


 Nope. pragma(lib, ...) just passes a static lib to the linker and 
 doesn't have any effect at runtime. (if you are dealing with .dll/.so 
 libraries then you link in a export .lib with a pragma or load them 
 manually and don't even worry about it at all)
 
 what if I don't have the source?


 It's pointing at a static library so source doesn't matter. If you are 
 working from source then you don't need the pragma and what matters is 
 DMD's import path (if it is an unrelated code tree in which cases the 
 path can be developer specific and needs to be set up per system).
 
 what if I want to change the version?


 In that case you change the pragma. (again assuming static libs and the 
 same side note for dynamic libs)
 
 what if I want to switch a vendor for this lib?


 I have never heard of this being possible without major changes in the 
 calling code so it don't matter.
 
 


What I was trying to say is that you're hardcoding the lib name and 
version inside the code. I see two problems with this: if the pragma is 
in my code than I need to re-compile my code if I want to edit the 
pragma (rename lib, change version, change vendor, etc...)
if the pragma is in some 3rd party component which I don't have the 
source for than I can't change the pragma.
either way, it conflicts with my work-flow and goals.

I do not wish to recompile a 1.5GB standalone executable if I just 
changed a minor version of a lib.

IIRC, the math lib in C/C++ comes in three flavors so you can choose 
your trade-off (speed or accuracy) and the only thing you need to do is 
just link the flavor you want in your executable.

you seem keen on combining the build process with compilation which is 
in my experience a very bad thing. it may simplify your life for your 
small projects but as I was telling you before it's a pain in the neck 
for the scale of projects I work on. I don't get why you refuse to see 
that.
what you suggest is _not_ a good solution for me.

May 25 2009

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

 I do not wish to recompile a 1.5GB standalone executable if I just 
 changed a minor version of a lib.


Can you tell me, why that application needs to be that big, and can't be 
split in several, smaller processes?

May 26 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello grauzone,

 I do not wish to recompile a 1.5GB standalone executable if I just
 changed a minor version of a lib.
 


 be split in several, smaller processes?
 


I'm more interested in how you got 1.5GBs of executable.

May 26 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Yigal,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Reply to Yigal,
 
 BCS wrote:
 
 Hello Yigal,
 
 C# assemblies are analogous to C/C++/D libs.
 you can't create a standalone executable in D just by parsing the
 D
 source files (for all the imports) if you need to link in external
 libs.
 you need to at least specify the lib name if it's on the linker's
 search path or provide the full path otherwise.


 


 implement this. In general though this is a bad idea. why would you
 want to embed such outside data inside your code?
 


 
 info needed for building your task should not be part of the code.
 


 tools can read. At a minimum, it should be in the comment header. The
 only other choice is placing it outside your code and we have already
 covered why I think that is a bad idea.
 
 what if I want to rename the lib,
 


 or outside) end up needing to be update. Regardless, you will need to
 update something by hand or have a tool do it for you. I see nothing
 harder about updateing it in the code than outside the code.
 
 do I have to recompile everything?
 


 doesn't have any effect at runtime. (if you are dealing with .dll/.so
 libraries then you link in a export .lib with a pragma or load them
 manually and don't even worry about it at all)
 
 what if I don't have the source?
 


 are working from source then you don't need the pragma and what
 matters is DMD's import path (if it is an unrelated code tree in
 which cases the path can be developer specific and needs to be set up
 per system).
 
 what if I want to change the version?
 


 the same side note for dynamic libs)
 
 what if I want to switch a vendor for this lib?
 


 the calling code so it don't matter.
 


 version inside the code. I see two problems with this: if the pragma
 is
 in my code than I need to re-compile my code if I want to edit the
 pragma (rename lib, change version, change vendor, etc...)
 if the pragma is in some 3rd party component which I don't have the
 source for than I can't change the pragma.
 either way, it conflicts with my work-flow and goals.
 I do not wish to recompile a 1.5GB standalone executable if I just
 changed a minor version of a lib.


I see you point but I think it is invalid.

For starters, I could be wrong but I think that the use of pragma(lib,) can't 
be detected in object code, I think It just instructs DMD to pass the lib 
on to the linker when it gets called by DMD. If I am wrong about that I still 
think it doesn't matter because (as far as static libraries go) I think it 
would a very BAD idea to try and switch them out from under a closed source 
lib. Third, if you really want to go mucking around with those internals, 
you can always copy the new lib over the old one.

 
 IIRC, the math lib in C/C++ comes in three flavors so you can choose
 your trade-off (speed or accuracy) and the only thing you need to do
 is just link the flavor you want in your executable.


Everything needs a math lib so there will be a default. I'd not willing to 
second guess the original programmer if they choose to switch to another 
lib. The same goes for other libs as well. If you start switching to libs 
that the lib's programmer doesn't explicitly support, your already on your 
own and you have bigger problems than what I'm talking about.

 you seem keen on combining the build process with compilation which is
 in my experience a very bad thing. it may simplify your life for your
 small projects but as I was telling you before it's a pain in the neck
 for the scale of projects I work on. I don't get why you refuse to see
 that. what you suggest is _not_ a good solution for me.


What I want is a language where most of the time you build a project from 
only the information in the source code. What I don't want is a language 
where the only way to keep track of the information you need to build a
project, 
is with an external data file. I don't want that because the only practical 
way to do that is _force_ the programmer to use an IDE and have it maintain 
that file.

May 26 2009

Jussi Jumppanen <jussij zeusedit.com> writes:

BCS Wrote:

 What I want is a language where most of the time you build 
 a project from only the information in the source code. 


There is nothing in C# that stops you doing exactly this.

You can build this Simple.cs file: 
  
  using System;
  using System.Windows.Forms;
  
  namespace SimpleApplication
  {
      static class Program
      {
          [STAThread]
          static void Main()
          {
              MessageBox.Show("Hello World!", "C# Application", 
                              MessageBoxButtons.OK, 
                              MessageBoxIcon.Information);
          }
      }
  }

to create a Simple.exe using nothing but this command line:

  csc.exe /r:System.dll; D:\temp\simple.cs

 What I don't want is a language where the only way to keep track 
 of the information you need to build a project, is with an external 
 data file. 


People have been developing projects using an "external data file" 
for decades. It's called the make file.

 I don't want that because the only practical way to do that is _force_ 
 the programmer to use an IDE and have it maintain that file.


What exactly is it about C# that makes you think you are FORCED
to use an IDE to write the code?
 
MSBuild.exe is nothing than Microsoft's replacement to make.exe. 

It is nothing more than a version of make.exe that takes XML 
make files as it's input.

May 26 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Jussi,

 BCS Wrote:
 
 What I want is a language where most of the time you build a project
 from only the information in the source code.
 


 
 You can build this Simple.cs file:
 


 to create a Simple.exe using nothing but this command line:
 
 csc.exe /r:System.dll; D:\temp\simple.cs


Most any language has what I want for single file programs. But when you 
start getting dozens of file in a project (including some file mixed into 
the working directory that shouldn't be included) it breaks down.

 
 What I don't want is a language where the only way to keep track of
 the information you need to build a project, is with an external data
 file.
 


 decades. It's called the make file.


C doesn't have the property I want, although it's not as bad as c# because 
makefiles are intended to be edited by hand. I'd rather not need make at 
all until I start having extra language build steps (yacc, rpm/deb generation, 
regression tests, etc.).

 
 I don't want that because the only practical way to do that is
 _force_ the programmer to use an IDE and have it maintain that file.
 


 an IDE to write the code?
 


The only practical way to keep track for what files do and do not get compiled 
is a .csproj file and the only resonable way to mantain them is VS or the 
equivelent.

 MSBuild.exe is nothing than Microsoft's replacement to make.exe.
 
 It is nothing more than a version of make.exe that takes XML make
 files as it's input.
 


Nuf said.

May 26 2009

Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 7:15 PM, BCS <none anon.com> wrote:

 second, D needs to update its stone age compilation model copied from
 C++. I'm not saying we need to copy the C# or Java models exactly, but
 we need to throw away the current legacy model.
 Java has convenient Jar files: you can package everything into nice
 modular packages with optional source code and documentation.
 similar stuff is done in .net.


 NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! (and I will /not/ apologies for yelling) I will fight
 that tooth and nail!

 One of the best thing about D IMNSHO is that a D program is "just a
 collection of text files". I can, without any special tools, dive in an view
 or edit any file I want. I can build with nothing but dmd and a command
 line. I can use the the source control system of my choice. And very
 importantly, the normal build model produces a stand alone OS native
 executable.


I don't think changing from a decades-old 'one object file per source
file' compilation model will make you sacrifice any of that.  He's
proposing something else, like a custom object format.  It has nothing
to do with the way source is stored, or with how you invoke the
compiler.  Java hasn't destroyed any of that by using .class files,
has it?

We already have a proof-of-concept of this sort of thing for D: LDC.
The LLVM intermediate form is far more amenable to cross-module and
link-time optimization.

May 17 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

I disagree on all your points.
read inside for comments.

Brad Roberts wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 IMO, designing the language to support this better work-flow is a good
 decision made by MS, and D should follow it instead of trying to get
 away without an IDE.


 Support or enable.. sure.  Require, absolutely not.
 
 I've become convinced that the over-reliance on auto-complete and other IDE
 features has lead to a generation of developers that really don't know their
 language / environment.  The number of propagated typo's due to first time
 mis-typing of name (I see lenght way too often at work) that I wanna ban the
use
 of auto-complete, but I'd get lynched.


first, typos - eclipse has a built-in spell checker so all those 
"lenght" will be underlined with an orange squiggly line.
regarding the more general comment of bad developers - you see a 
connection where there is none. A friend of mine showed me a a graph 
online that clearly shows the inverse correlation between the number of 
pirates in the world and global worming. (thanks to the Somalian 
pirates, that means the global effort to reduce emissions somewhat helps)
A better analogy would be automotive: if you're Michael Schumacher than 
an automated transmission will just slow you down, but for the rest of 
the population it helps improve driving. the transmission doesn't make 
the driver good or bad, but it does help the majority of drivers to 
improve their driving skills.

there are bad programmers that use a text editor as much as the ones 
that use an IDE. there are also good programmers on both sides.
An IDE doesn't create bad programmers, rather the IDE helps bad 
programmers to write less buggy code.

 
 If the applications library space is so vast or random that you can't keep
track
 of where things are, a tool that helps you type in code is papering over a more
 serious problem.


false again, using a tool that helps writing code does not mean there's 
a design problem in the code. auto-complete prevents typos, for instance 
and that has nothing to do with anything you said.
For me, many times I remember that there's a method that does something 
I need by I can't remember if it's called fooBar(int, char) or 
barFoo(char, int) or any other permutation. you'd need to go check the 
documentation, I save time by using the auto-complete.
Another use case is when I need to use some API I can get the list of 
methods with the documentation by using the auto-complete feature.
 
 My other problem with IDE's, such as eclipse, is that it's such an all or
 nothing investment.  You can't really just use part of it.  You must buy in to
 it's editor, it's interface with your SCM, it's scriptures of indentation
style,
 etc.  Trying to deviate from any of it is such a large pain that it's just not
 worth it -- more so as the team working on a project gets larger.


completely wrong. You forget - Eclipse is just a plug-in engine with 
default plug-ins that implement a Java IDE.
editor: prefer vim/emacs? there are eclipse plugins that implement both.
SCM: there are _tons_ of SCM plug-ins! just use what ever you prefer. I 
use git and there's a neat UI for that. *But*, sometimes I prefer git's 
command line. what to do? no problem, I can open a terminal window 
inside eclipse and run any command I want!
I work on unix and my local eclipse (on windows) can open remote files 
on the unix machine. eclipse does everything for me including giving me 
a shell to run remote commands.
indentation style: there's nothing easier. go to eclipse properties. for 
each language you have installed you can configure "styles" and eclipse 
will ident, color, format your code in what ever way you want.

you don't have to like or use eclipse, or any other IDE but if you are 
not familiar with the tool, don't provide mis-information.

 
 Sorry, I'll stop ranting.
 
 Sigh,
 Brad

May 17 2009

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 I disagree on all your points.
 read inside for comments.
 
 Brad Roberts wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 IMO, designing the language to support this better work-flow is a good
 decision made by MS, and D should follow it instead of trying to get
 away without an IDE.


 Support or enable.. sure.  Require, absolutely not.

 I've become convinced that the over-reliance on auto-complete and
 other IDE
 features has lead to a generation of developers that really don't know
 their
 language / environment.  The number of propagated typo's due to first
 time
 mis-typing of name (I see lenght way too often at work) that I wanna
 ban the use
 of auto-complete, but I'd get lynched.


 first, typos - eclipse has a built-in spell checker so all those
 "lenght" will be underlined with an orange squiggly line.
 regarding the more general comment of bad developers - you see a
 connection where there is none. A friend of mine showed me a a graph
 online that clearly shows the inverse correlation between the number of
 pirates in the world and global worming. (thanks to the Somalian
 pirates, that means the global effort to reduce emissions somewhat helps)
 A better analogy would be automotive: if you're Michael Schumacher than
 an automated transmission will just slow you down, but for the rest of
 the population it helps improve driving. the transmission doesn't make
 the driver good or bad, but it does help the majority of drivers to
 improve their driving skills.
 
 there are bad programmers that use a text editor as much as the ones
 that use an IDE. there are also good programmers on both sides.
 An IDE doesn't create bad programmers, rather the IDE helps bad
 programmers to write less buggy code.
 
 If the applications library space is so vast or random that you can't
 keep track
 of where things are, a tool that helps you type in code is papering
 over a more
 serious problem.


 false again, using a tool that helps writing code does not mean there's
 a design problem in the code. auto-complete prevents typos, for instance
 and that has nothing to do with anything you said.
 For me, many times I remember that there's a method that does something
 I need by I can't remember if it's called fooBar(int, char) or
 barFoo(char, int) or any other permutation. you'd need to go check the
 documentation, I save time by using the auto-complete.
 Another use case is when I need to use some API I can get the list of
 methods with the documentation by using the auto-complete feature.
 My other problem with IDE's, such as eclipse, is that it's such an all or
 nothing investment.  You can't really just use part of it.  You must
 buy in to
 it's editor, it's interface with your SCM, it's scriptures of
 indentation style,
 etc.  Trying to deviate from any of it is such a large pain that it's
 just not
 worth it -- more so as the team working on a project gets larger.


 completely wrong. You forget - Eclipse is just a plug-in engine with
 default plug-ins that implement a Java IDE.
 editor: prefer vim/emacs? there are eclipse plugins that implement both.
 SCM: there are _tons_ of SCM plug-ins! just use what ever you prefer. I
 use git and there's a neat UI for that. *But*, sometimes I prefer git's
 command line. what to do? no problem, I can open a terminal window
 inside eclipse and run any command I want!
 I work on unix and my local eclipse (on windows) can open remote files
 on the unix machine. eclipse does everything for me including giving me
 a shell to run remote commands.
 indentation style: there's nothing easier. go to eclipse properties. for
 each language you have installed you can configure "styles" and eclipse
 will ident, color, format your code in what ever way you want.
 
 you don't have to like or use eclipse, or any other IDE but if you are
 not familiar with the tool, don't provide mis-information.
 
 Sorry, I'll stop ranting.

 Sigh,
 Brad




As I said.. "I have become convinced..." it might not be actually true, and it
might not hold for everyone, but I've seen it frequently enough that I've
started to doubt statements to the contrary.  I could well be wrong, but I'm not
going to accept your word any more than you accept mine.

You are correct that for every generalization that there are good exceptions.

To address a few of your points, I've tried several of the various plugs, both
at the editor and scm layers.  I've talked with a whole bunch of other people I
consider experts who have done the same.  The answer that's come back every
single time... the plugins suck.  The only ones that actually are long-term
usable are the defaults.  Maybe one year that'll change, but forgive me for not
holding my breath.  That doesn't mean it's not possible, just means that the
effort of doing a _good_ job hasn't been worth the communities time, and that's
fine.

Anyway.. since I'm fairly confident that D isn't ever going to abandon the
pieces I care about, and might well enable the pieces you care about, it's kinda
pointless to argue about it.

Later,
Brad

May 17 2009

Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:

...
 IMO, designing the language to support this better work-flow is a good 
 decision made by MS, and D should follow it instead of trying to get 
 away without an IDE.


I'm not sure about this. D is designed to be easier to parse than C++ 
(but that's saying nothing) to allow better tools made for it. I think this 
should be enough. 

C# & friends not only better supports working inside an IDE, but makes it a
pain to 
do without. Autocomplete dictates that related functions should be named with
the exact same prefix - even when this isn't logical. It also encourages names
to be 
as descriptive as possible, in practice leading to a part of the api docs
encoded in 
the function name. Extremely bloated names are the consequence of this. It
doesn't 
always make code more readable imho. 

The documentation comments are in xml: pure insanity. I tried to generate
documentation 
for my stuff at work once, expecting to be done in max 5 min. like ddoc. Turns
out nobody at 
work uses documentation generation for a reason: it isn't really fleshed out
and one-click
from the IDE, in fact it is a pain in the arse compared to using ddoc.

I should stop now before this turns into a rant.

May 18 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

Lutger wrote:
 Yigal Chripun wrote:
 
 ...
 IMO, designing the language to support this better work-flow is a good 
 decision made by MS, and D should follow it instead of trying to get 
 away without an IDE.


 I'm not sure about this. D is designed to be easier to parse than C++ 
 (but that's saying nothing) to allow better tools made for it. I think this 
 should be enough. 
 
 C# & friends not only better supports working inside an IDE, but makes it a
pain to 
 do without. Autocomplete dictates that related functions should be named with
 the exact same prefix - even when this isn't logical. It also encourages names
to be 
 as descriptive as possible, in practice leading to a part of the api docs
encoded in 
 the function name. Extremely bloated names are the consequence of this. It
doesn't 
 always make code more readable imho. 
 


already answered.
an IDE does _not_ create bad programmers, and does _not_ encourage bad 
code. it does encourage descriptive names which is a _good_ thing.

writing "strcpy" ala C style is cryptic and *wrong*. code is read 
hundred times more than it's written and a better name would be for 
instance - "stringCopy".
it's common nowadays to have tera-byte sized HDD so why people try to 
save a few bytes from their source while sacrificing readability?

the only issue I have with too long names is when dealing with C/C++ 
code that prefixes all symbols with their file-names/namespaces. At 
least in C++ this is solved by using namespaces. but this is a problem 
with the languages themselves and has nothing to do with the IDE.

 The documentation comments are in xml: pure insanity. I tried to generate
documentation 
 for my stuff at work once, expecting to be done in max 5 min. like ddoc. Turns
out nobody at 
 work uses documentation generation for a reason: it isn't really fleshed out
and one-click
 from the IDE, in fact it is a pain in the arse compared to using ddoc.
 
 I should stop now before this turns into a rant.
 


I agree fully with this. XML documents are a mistake made by MS. javadoc 
is a much better format and even that can be improved.

This however has nothing to do with the IDE. the important part is that 
the IDE parses whatever format is used and can show you the 
documentation via simple means. no need for you to spend time to find 
the documentation yourself.

May 19 2009

Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
...
 


 already answered.
 an IDE does _not_ create bad programmers, and does _not_ encourage bad 
 code. it does encourage descriptive names which is a _good_ thing.
 
 writing "strcpy" ala C style is cryptic and *wrong*. code is read 
 hundred times more than it's written and a better name would be for 
 instance - "stringCopy".
 it's common nowadays to have tera-byte sized HDD so why people try to 
 save a few bytes from their source while sacrificing readability?



This is not what I was saying. 

I'm not talking about strcpy vs stringCopy. stringCopy is short. I'm talking 
about things like SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault.

And this example isn't even so bad. Fact is, it is easier to come up with long 
identifiers and there is no penalty in the form of typing cost for doing so. 

It's not about bad programmers (or saving bytes, that's just ridiculous), but
IDE 
does encourage some kind of constructs because they are easier in that 
environment. Good programmers come up with good, descriptive names, whether
they 
program in an IDE or not. 

At work I must program in VB.NET. This language is pretty verbose in describing 
even the most common things. It's easier to parse when you're new to the 
language, but after a while I find all the verbosity gets in the way of 
readability.

May 24 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Ary,

 BCS escribi�:
 
 I think that any real programing project now days (regardless of
 language) needs tools to help the programmer. The difference between
 D and C# is that with D you /can/ get away without an IDE and with C#
 you won't get much at all done without one.
 


 autocompletion, not much for the build-and-jump-to-error stuff. And I
 don't see D being easier with regards to remembering what's the name
 of that function, which members does a class have, in which module are
 all these.


I'm not referring to editing. For that, most any language you can get away 
without an IDE if you are willing, but it will cost you something. 
 
 Why do you say that with D you can get away without an IDE


Because off ten as not I do. For some reason I have never gotten Descent 
working correctly. Most of the time, the code outlining works but I've never 
gotten auto-compleat or integrated building to work.

 and with C#
 you can't? I think you can do the same as in C#, don't use an IDE and
 get away with pretty much everything, except you'll be slower at it
 (same goes for D without an IDE).


As above, I'm not talking about editing, but rater about the rest of the 
tools like the compiler and debugger. Has anyone ever tried building a c# 
project without an IDE? I don't even know if it can be done. Yes you can 
trigger a build from the command line, but setting up a project without it 
would require hand editing of XML (yuck) and the build tool IS visual studio.

 
 Again, this also applies to Java. When I started using Java I used the
 command line and an editor with just syntax highlighting, and made
 programs of several classes without problem. Refactoring was a PITA,
 and I'm thinking it's like that in D nowadays. :-P


I think it's like that in every language. The programs people work on now 
days are, no matter their representation, to complex for a person to navigate 
without tools.

May 17 2009

Jussi Jumppanen <jussij zeusedit.com> writes:

BCS Wrote:

 Has anyone ever tried building a c# project without an IDE? 


Yes.

 I don't even know if it can be done. 


It is actually very easy to do:

  http://www.zeusedit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2518

and it is even easier if you have a simple 'one file', throw 
away project:

  http://www.zeusedit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1235

 Yes you can trigger a build from the command line, but setting 
 up a project without it would require hand editing of XML (yuck) 
 and the build tool IS visual studio.


It is true that Visual Studio creates XML project/solution files
and the contents of these files is overly complex.

But these XML files are Visual Studio specific and a lot of their 
complexity comes from the fact that they contain extra information 
that is only needed by the IDE.

If you use the MsBuild approach the amount of XML that is needed to 
create a project/solution is much smaller and in general the XML is 
fairly trivial.

May 17 2009

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

Jussi Jumppanen wrote:
 BCS Wrote:
 
 Has anyone ever tried building a c# project without an IDE? 


 Yes.
 
 I don't even know if it can be done. 


 It is actually very easy to do:
 
   http://www.zeusedit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2518


I look at that, and all I can say is: "if that's easy, then what's this?"

 rebuild MyProgram


I will give you this, though: D's toolchain could use improvement in
more complex builds.  But it's still a hell of a lot simpler than
anything C#'s toolchain can do.

 ...
 
 If you use the MsBuild approach the amount of XML that is needed to 
 create a project/solution is much smaller and in general the XML is 
 fairly trivial.  


If it's trivial, why does it need a tutorial? :P

  -- Daniel

May 17 2009

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Daniel Keep wrote:
 rebuild MyProgram


 I will give you this, though: D's toolchain could use improvement in
 more complex builds.  But it's still a hell of a lot simpler than
 anything C#'s toolchain can do.


Have you tried DSSS? It's surprisingly feature-rich, and its syntax is a 
lot simpler than MSBuild's.

IMO, any build more complex than setting a few options should be handled 
by a scripting language, though. Knocking together a Perl script to call 
your builder is often a lot easier than mucking around with huge 
configuration files (anyone who's used Ant can attest).

May 17 2009

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

Robert Fraser wrote:
 Daniel Keep wrote:
 rebuild MyProgram


 I will give you this, though: D's toolchain could use improvement in
 more complex builds.  But it's still a hell of a lot simpler than
 anything C#'s toolchain can do.


 Have you tried DSSS? It's surprisingly feature-rich, and its syntax is a
 lot simpler than MSBuild's.


-_-

You realise that in order to be using rebuild, I HAVE to also have DSSS,
right?  I'm pretty sure Gregor stopped releasing rebuild-only packages
quite some time ago.

DSSS itself is OK, but I can't let you get away with saying it's syntax
is simpler than MSBuild's.  Oh sure, it's not XML, but it's just...
inscrutable.

For example, I once had to ditch DSSS for a project because I needed to
add a flag for Windows builds.  Adding that flag killed all the other
flags for all the other builds for some reason, even using the += thing.

The lack of any sort of stable ordering for build steps is a pain, too.
 And it annoys me that I can't specify what a default build should do.

DSSS is weird; even after Gregor wrote all the documentation for it, it
still just didn't make sense.  Maybe it's cursed or something. :P

 IMO, any build more complex than setting a few options should be handled
 by a scripting language, though. Knocking together a Perl script to call
 your builder is often a lot easier than mucking around with huge
 configuration files (anyone who's used Ant can attest).


I do have a build script for one of my projects.  It's fairly large.
The problem is, it's doing what this makefile would accomplish:

%.d: %.dw
  dtangle $  # I forget the exact syntax

It's always annoyed the crap out of me that we've lost such a basic
transformative tool.

  -- Daniel


P.S.  No, I can't just use make; I'm on Windows.  I really, REALLY don't
want to have to deal with that bullshit again.

May 17 2009

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Mon, 18 May 2009 12:43:34 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:

 
 You realise that in order to be using rebuild, I HAVE to also have DSSS,
 right?  I'm pretty sure Gregor stopped releasing rebuild-only packages
 quite some time ago.


Not to trumpet my own horn, but have you considered my build tool called
'Bud'? And if you have then what is missing from it that you need?

http://www.dsource.org/projects/build

Gregor derived DSSS from my project.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

May 17 2009

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Mon, 18 May 2009 12:43:34 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
 
  
 You realise that in order to be using rebuild, I HAVE to also have DSSS,
 right?  I'm pretty sure Gregor stopped releasing rebuild-only packages
 quite some time ago.


 Not to trumpet my own horn, but have you considered my build tool called
 'Bud'? And if you have then what is missing from it that you need?
 
 http://www.dsource.org/projects/build
 
 Gregor derived DSSS from my project.


Actually, the project that has the big build script is using bud.  I
think bud is supposed to have some sort of transformative feature, but I
just couldn't make it work.  Aside from that, it works just fine, so I
never felt the need to replace it. [1]

The two main reasons I switched to rebuild over bud was -oq and -dc.
Developing with various combinations of stable compilers, unstable
compilers, custom compilers, phobos, tango stable and tango trunk makes
-dc a godsend.

And I'm just a neat freak when it comes to folders, hence my love of -oq :D.

  -- Daniel


[1] This project actually has a private copy of the entire D toolchain
because I'm completely paranoid about breaking it.

May 18 2009

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Daniel Keep wrote:
 P.S.  No, I can't just use make; I'm on Windows.  I really, REALLY don't
 want to have to deal with that bullshit again.


http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html

My current build script is cobbled together from Perl, Make, and DSSS. 
It sounds ugly, but when I tried it out on Linux (I usually use 
Windows), the entire thing built without a single change.

May 17 2009

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Robert Fraser wrote:
 Daniel Keep wrote:
 P.S.  No, I can't just use make; I'm on Windows.  I really, REALLY don't
 want to have to deal with that bullshit again.


 http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html


Oops, wrong one: 
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=9328&package_id=9393

May 17 2009

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

Robert Fraser wrote:
 Daniel Keep wrote:
 P.S.  No, I can't just use make; I'm on Windows.  I really, REALLY don't
 want to have to deal with that bullshit again.


 http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html
 
 My current build script is cobbled together from Perl, Make, and DSSS.
 It sounds ugly, but when I tried it out on Linux (I usually use
 Windows), the entire thing built without a single change.


Mine is Python, bud and a modified version of Knuth's CWEB.  I don't
trust win32 "ports" of GNU tools [1] because there's usually some
horrible incompatibility lurking in the shadows waiting to bite you on
the arse.

  -- Daniel


[1] I exclude Cygwin from this because it's running inside proper bash
with largely proper UNIX semantics.  It's also so fiddly and annoying to
get to that I don't bother any more.  :P

May 18 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Jussi,

 BCS Wrote:
 
 Has anyone ever tried building a c# project without an IDE?
 


 
 I don't even know if it can be done.
 


 
 http://www.zeusedit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2518


Um, Step 1. OK. Step2. OK. Step 3. Yup, no longer practical. If that's what 
it take, you have just proven my point to my satisfaction. D can be built 
with no non-code files C# can't. I'll tolerate something like make but nothing 
like that .proj file. 

 Yes you can trigger a build from the command line, but setting up a
 project without it would require hand editing of XML (yuck) and the
 build tool IS visual studio.
 


 the contents of these files is overly complex.
 
 But these XML files are Visual Studio specific and a lot of their
 complexity comes from the fact that they contain extra information
 that is only needed by the IDE.
 
 If you use the MsBuild approach the amount of XML that is needed to
 create a project/solution is much smaller and in general the XML is
 fairly trivial.
 


Smaller than huge and fairly trivial in comparison to what? The only people 
who are going to do this (c# w/o someones IDE) are 1) people forced both 
to use c# and to not use an IDE or 2) the same kind of people who run OSX 
on an Xbox ( :-O  Oh my, someone actually did that, I didn't known:
http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/06/os_x_for_the_xbox/ 
) because they like thumbing their nose at the big guys.

May 17 2009

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 18 May 2009 02:51:19 +0000, BCS wrote:

 Hello Jussi,
 
 BCS Wrote:
 
 Has anyone ever tried building a c# project without an IDE?
 


 
 I don't even know if it can be done.
 


 
 http://www.zeusedit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2518


 Um, Step 1. OK. Step2. OK. Step 3. Yup, no longer practical. If that's
 what it take, you have just proven my point to my satisfaction. D can be
 built with no non-code files C# can't. I'll tolerate something like make
 but nothing like that .proj file.


I can at least say that building a GTK# program with Mono isn't much 
different from D or C family. Link in your libraries and give it your 
*.cs files. My projects haven't been very large, but haven't yet had to 
provide non-source code for a build.

May 25 2009

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

Yigal Chripun wrote:
 IMO, designing the language to support this better work-flow is a good
 decision made by MS, and D should follow it instead of trying to get
 away without an IDE.


Support or enable.. sure.  Require, absolutely not.

I've become convinced that the over-reliance on auto-complete and other IDE
features has lead to a generation of developers that really don't know their
language / environment.  The number of propagated typo's due to first time
mis-typing of name (I see lenght way too often at work) that I wanna ban the use
of auto-complete, but I'd get lynched.

If the applications library space is so vast or random that you can't keep track
of where things are, a tool that helps you type in code is papering over a more
serious problem.

My other problem with IDE's, such as eclipse, is that it's such an all or
nothing investment.  You can't really just use part of it.  You must buy in to
it's editor, it's interface with your SCM, it's scriptures of indentation style,
etc.  Trying to deviate from any of it is such a large pain that it's just not
worth it -- more so as the team working on a project gets larger.

Sorry, I'll stop ranting.

Sigh,
Brad

May 17 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Brad,

 My other problem with IDE's, such as eclipse, is that it's such an all
 or nothing investment.  You can't really just use part of it.  You
 must buy in to it's editor, it's interface with your SCM, it's
 scriptures of indentation style, etc.  Trying to deviate from any of
 it is such a large pain that it's just not worth it -- more so as the
 team working on a project gets larger.


For VS, you might have a point. However for D, I use Descent and I haven't 
found any of those to be a problem. Getting people to agree on how to set 
it up I expect would be a bigger problem.

May 17 2009

Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Hello Brad,
 
 My other problem with IDE's, such as eclipse, is that it's such an all
 or nothing investment.  You can't really just use part of it.  You
 must buy in to it's editor, it's interface with your SCM, it's
 scriptures of indentation style, etc.  Trying to deviate from any of
 it is such a large pain that it's just not worth it -- more so as the
 team working on a project gets larger.


 For VS, you might have a point. However for D, I use Descent and I
 haven't found any of those to be a problem. Getting people to agree on
 how to set it up I expect would be a bigger problem.


Actually, Descent isn't perfect, either.  For example, it mandates that
cases in a switch MUST be aligned with the braces.  What's more fun is
that you can't override it until AFTER it's corrected YOU.

Oh, and how it indents multiline function calls is completely retarded.

And every time I try to autocomplete a templated function call, it
insists on inserting ALL of the template arguments, even when they're
supposed to be derived.

Don't get me wrong, I quite like Descent.  But as soon as you try to
make a program "smart", you're going to start getting it wrong.

</rant>

  -- Daniel

May 17 2009

grauzone <none example.net> writes:

 Oh, and how it indents multiline function calls is completely retarded.
 
 And every time I try to autocomplete a templated function call, it
 insists on inserting ALL of the template arguments, even when they're
 supposed to be derived.



This is why I don't like IDEs. Plus, every time you type something, 
stuff BLINKS around, grabbing your attention, saying I'M SO ANNOYING 
PLEASE DISABLE ME AS A FEATURE. Like documentation tooltips, auto 
completion hints, or "intelligent" indentation. It's ridiculous. When I 
hit a key, I want the text editor insert that key. Not do.... random.... 
stuff.

How do Eclipse user deal with it? Not look at the screen when typing?

May 17 2009

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

grauzone wrote:
 Oh, and how it indents multiline function calls is completely retarded.

 And every time I try to autocomplete a templated function call, it
 insists on inserting ALL of the template arguments, even when they're
 supposed to be derived.


 
 This is why I don't like IDEs. Plus, every time you type something, 
 stuff BLINKS around, grabbing your attention, saying I'M SO ANNOYING 
 PLEASE DISABLE ME AS A FEATURE. Like documentation tooltips, auto 
 completion hints, or "intelligent" indentation. It's ridiculous. When I 
 hit a key, I want the text editor insert that key. Not do.... random.... 
 stuff.
 
 How do Eclipse user deal with it? Not look at the screen when typing?


That's why I do even Java with editor and make.

May 17 2009

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

grauzone wrote:
 Oh, and how it indents multiline function calls is completely retarded.

 And every time I try to autocomplete a templated function call, it
 insists on inserting ALL of the template arguments, even when they're
 supposed to be derived.


 
 This is why I don't like IDEs. Plus, every time you type something, 
 stuff BLINKS around, grabbing your attention, saying I'M SO ANNOYING 
 PLEASE DISABLE ME AS A FEATURE. Like documentation tooltips, auto 
 completion hints, or "intelligent" indentation. It's ridiculous. When I 
 hit a key, I want the text editor insert that key. Not do.... random.... 
 stuff.
 
 How do Eclipse user deal with it? Not look at the screen when typing?


I do look at the screen because I WANT to use those features. I don't 
try to work around them I try to use them instead. If there's a feature 
I don't like I disable it, you just have to configure the application in 
the way you like it. An application can't be configured from the 
beginning to satisfy all peoples needs.

May 18 2009

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

grauzone wrote:
 Oh, and how it indents multiline function calls is completely retarded.

 And every time I try to autocomplete a templated function call, it
 insists on inserting ALL of the template arguments, even when they're
 supposed to be derived.




Hmm... At least for Descent there are tickets #168 and #169, which are 
now fixed in trunk and will be in the next release.

If something is not available in the IDE or it annoys you, just disable 
it or make a feature request. :)

May 18 2009

Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:

grauzone wrote:
 Oh, and how it indents multiline function calls is completely retarded.

 And every time I try to autocomplete a templated function call, it
 insists on inserting ALL of the template arguments, even when they're
 supposed to be derived.


 
 This is why I don't like IDEs. Plus, every time you type something, 
 stuff BLINKS around, grabbing your attention, saying I'M SO ANNOYING 
 PLEASE DISABLE ME AS A FEATURE. Like documentation tooltips, auto 
 completion hints, or "intelligent" indentation. It's ridiculous. When I 
 hit a key, I want the text editor insert that key. Not do.... random.... 
 stuff.
 
 How do Eclipse user deal with it? Not look at the screen when typing?


that sounds like an old man complaining that modern television has sound 
and colors.

you can disable all features or just use a primitive text editor since 
that's what your used too, but those thing are *not* problems.

It is extremely useful to have the documentation tooltips instead of 
spending time on searching manually in some book or whatever.
the smart indentation is a godsend, if I paste a snippet it is adjusted 
to my code so I can see how many braces I need to have at the end.

I certainly do *NOT* want to go back to writing shell scripts or emacs 
LISP functions just to copy some snippet from one file to another!

May 18 2009

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

Daniel Keep wrote:
 
 BCS wrote:
 Hello Brad,

 My other problem with IDE's, such as eclipse, is that it's such an all
 or nothing investment.  You can't really just use part of it.  You
 must buy in to it's editor, it's interface with your SCM, it's
 scriptures of indentation style, etc.  Trying to deviate from any of
 it is such a large pain that it's just not worth it -- more so as the
 team working on a project gets larger.


 haven't found any of those to be a problem. Getting people to agree on
 how to set it up I expect would be a bigger problem.


 Actually, Descent isn't perfect, either.  For example, it mandates that
 cases in a switch MUST be aligned with the braces.  What's more fun is
 that you can't override it until AFTER it's corrected YOU.


Just file a ticket.

 Oh, and how it indents multiline function calls is completely retarded.
 
 And every time I try to autocomplete a templated function call, it
 insists on inserting ALL of the template arguments, even when they're
 supposed to be derived.


That's been fixed now: 
http://www.dsource.org/projects/descent/changeset/1344

 Don't get me wrong, I quite like Descent.  But as soon as you try to
 make a program "smart", you're going to start getting it wrong.
 
 </rant>
 
   -- Daniel

May 18 2009

Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:

Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 Daniel Keep wrote:
 Actually, Descent isn't perfect, either.  For example, it mandates that
 cases in a switch MUST be aligned with the braces.  What's more fun is
 that you can't override it until AFTER it's corrected YOU.


 Just file a ticket.


The relevant ticket[1] is a year old, according to dsource...


[1]: At least I *think* he's talking about this: 
http://dsource.org/projects/descent/ticket/82

May 18 2009

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

Frits van Bommel wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 Daniel Keep wrote:
 Actually, Descent isn't perfect, either.  For example, it mandates that
 cases in a switch MUST be aligned with the braces.  What's more fun is
 that you can't override it until AFTER it's corrected YOU.


 Just file a ticket.


 The relevant ticket[1] is a year old, according to dsource...
 
 
 [1]: At least I *think* he's talking about this: 
 http://dsource.org/projects/descent/ticket/82


Well, I didn't know it was *that* important for using it. If you 
consider it really important, post something in the forums, reply to 
that ticket, or something like that.

Well... posting in the newsgroup works too. ;-)

http://dsource.org/projects/descent/changeset/1347

May 18 2009

Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Frits van Bommel wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 Daniel Keep wrote:
 Actually, Descent isn't perfect, either.  For example, it mandates that
 cases in a switch MUST be aligned with the braces.  What's more fun is
 that you can't override it until AFTER it's corrected YOU.


 Just file a ticket.


 The relevant ticket[1] is a year old, according to dsource...


 [1]: At least I *think* he's talking about this: 
 http://dsource.org/projects/descent/ticket/82


 Well, I didn't know it was *that* important for using it. If you 
 consider it really important, post something in the forums, reply to 
 that ticket, or something like that.


Why would I reply to it? I *wrote* it.
(And yeah, it may not look important but it's pretty darn annoying)

 Well... posting in the newsgroup works too. ;-)
 
 http://dsource.org/projects/descent/changeset/1347


:)


Unfortunately, most of my coding is on LDC nowadays, which isn't written in D...

May 18 2009

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

Frits van Bommel escribió:
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Frits van Bommel wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 Daniel Keep wrote:
 Actually, Descent isn't perfect, either.  For example, it mandates 
 that
 cases in a switch MUST be aligned with the braces.  What's more fun is
 that you can't override it until AFTER it's corrected YOU.


 Just file a ticket.


 The relevant ticket[1] is a year old, according to dsource...


 [1]: At least I *think* he's talking about this: 
 http://dsource.org/projects/descent/ticket/82


 Well, I didn't know it was *that* important for using it. If you 
 consider it really important, post something in the forums, reply to 
 that ticket, or something like that.


 Why would I reply to it? I *wrote* it.


LOL!

May 19 2009

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 BCS escribi�:
 Hello Georg,

 So, in a way, Microsoft may be right in assuming that (especially when
 their thinking anyway is that everybody sits at a computer that's
 totally dedicated to the user's current activity anyhow) preposterous
 horse power is (or, should be) available at the code editor.


 I think that any real programing project now days (regardless of 
 language) needs tools to help the programmer. The difference between D 
 and C# is that with D you /can/ get away without an IDE and with C# 
 you won't get much at all done without one.


 I can't agree with this. Most of the time I use an IDE for the 
 autocompletion, not much for the build-and-jump-to-error stuff. And I 
 don't see D being easier with regards to remembering what's the name of 
 that function, which members does a class have, in which module are all 
 these.
 
 Why do you say that with D you can get away without an IDE and with C# 
 you can't? I think you can do the same as in C#, don't use an IDE and 
 get away with pretty much everything, except you'll be slower at it 
 (same goes for D without an IDE).


The more boilerplate code a language requires, the more important it is 
to have an IDE. Features that a language provides that allow you to 
write less code make an IDE less important.

I really like IDEs. They let me think less when creating code.

Of course, the other feature is notifying the user about errors sooner 
than their next compile. This saves a lot of time, regardless of whether 
your language requires significant cruft or not.

May 17 2009

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Christopher Wright wrote:
 I really like IDEs. They let me think less when creating code.


It wouldn't be hard to do a competent IDE for D. After all, D is 
designed to make that job easy.

May 19 2009

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

Walter Bright escribi�:
 Christopher Wright wrote:
 I really like IDEs. They let me think less when creating code.


 It wouldn't be hard to do a competent IDE for D. After all, D is 
 designed to make that job easy.


Like, for example, if you have this:

---
char[] someFunction(char[] name) {
   return "int " ~ name ~ ";";
}

class Foo {
	mixin(someFunction("variable"));
}

void main() {
	Foo foo = new Foo();
	foo.  --> I'd really like the IDE to suggest me "variable"
}
---

Do you really think implementing a *good* IDE for D is easy now? :-P

(of course Descent works in this case, but just because it has the full 
dmdfe in it... so basically a good IDE will need to be able to do CTFE, 
instantiante templates, etc., and all of those things are kind of 
unclear in the specification of the D language, so if you don't use 
dmdfe... well... I hope you get my point)

May 19 2009

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Do you really think implementing a *good* IDE for D is easy now? :-P
 
 (of course Descent works in this case, but just because it has the full 
 dmdfe in it... so basically a good IDE will need to be able to do CTFE, 
 instantiante templates, etc., and all of those things are kind of 
 unclear in the specification of the D language, so if you don't use 
 dmdfe... well... I hope you get my point)


The dmdfe is available, so one doesn't have to recreate it. That makes 
it easy :-)

May 19 2009

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

Walter Bright escribi�:
 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Do you really think implementing a *good* IDE for D is easy now? :-P

 (of course Descent works in this case, but just because it has the 
 full dmdfe in it... so basically a good IDE will need to be able to do 
 CTFE, instantiante templates, etc., and all of those things are kind 
 of unclear in the specification of the D language, so if you don't use 
 dmdfe... well... I hope you get my point)


 The dmdfe is available, so one doesn't have to recreate it. That makes 
 it easy :-)


Except if the IDE is not made in C++ ;-)

May 19 2009

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Georg Wrede wrote:
 In the Good Old Days (when it was usual for an average programmer to 
 write parts of the code in ASM (that was the time before the late 
 eighties -- be it Basic, Pascal, or even C, some parts had to be done in 
 ASM to help a bearable user experience when the mainframes had less 
 power than today's MP3 players), the ASM programing was very different 
 on, say, Zilog, MOS, or Motorola processors. The rumor was that the 6502 
 was made for hand coded ASM, whereas the 8088 was more geared towards 
 automatic code generation (as in C commpilers, etc.). My experiences of 
 both certainly seemed to support this.


The 6502 is an 8 bit processor, the 8088 is 16 bits. All 8 bit 
processors were a terrible fit for C, which was designed for 16 bit 
CPUs. Everyone who coded professional apps for the 6502, 6800, 8080 and 
Z80 (all 8 bit CPUs) wrote in assembler. (Including myself.)


 If we were smart with D, we'd find out a way of leapfrogging this 
 thinking. We have a language that's more powerful than any of C#, Java 
 or C++, more practical than Haskell, Scheme, Ruby, &co, and more 
 maintainable than C or Perl, but which *still* is Human Writable. All we 
 need is some outside-of-the-box thinking, and we might reap some 
 overwhelming advantages when we combine *this* language with the IDEs 
 and the horsepower that the modern drone takes for granted.
 
 Easier parsing, CTFE, actually usable templates, practical mixins, pure 
 functions, safe code, you name it! We have all the bits and pieces to 
 really make writing + IDE assisted program authoring, a superior reality.


Right, but I can't think of any IDE feature that would be a bad fit for 
using the filesystem to store the D source modules.

May 19 2009

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Walter Bright:
 The 6502 is an 8 bit processor, the 8088 is 16 bits. All 8 bit 
 processors were a terrible fit for C, which was designed for 16 bit 
 CPUs. Everyone who coded professional apps for the 6502, 6800, 8080 and 
 Z80 (all 8 bit CPUs) wrote in assembler. (Including myself.)


Forth interpreters can be very small, it's a very flexible language, you can
metaprogram it almost as Lisp, and if implemented well it can be efficient
(surely more than interpreter Basic, but less than handwritten asm. You can
have an optimizing Forth in probably less than 4-5 KB).

But the people was waiting/asking for the Basic Language, most people didn't
know Forth, Basic was common in schools, so Basic was the language shipped
inside the machine, instead of Forth:
http://www.npsnet.com/danf/cbm/languages.html#FORTH

The Commodore 64 with built-in Forth instead of Basic may have driven computer
science in a quite different direction.

Do you agree?

Bye,
bearophile

May 19 2009

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

bearophile wrote:
 Forth interpreters can be very small, it's a very flexible language,
 you can metaprogram it almost as Lisp, and if implemented well it can
 be efficient (surely more than interpreter Basic, but less than
 handwritten asm. You can have an optimizing Forth in probably less
 than 4-5 KB).
 
 But the people was waiting/asking for the Basic Language, most people
 didn't know Forth, Basic was common in schools, so Basic was the
 language shipped inside the machine, instead of Forth: 
 http://www.npsnet.com/danf/cbm/languages.html#FORTH
 
 The Commodore 64 with built-in Forth instead of Basic may have driven
 computer science in a quite different direction.
 
 Do you agree?


I remember lots of talk about Forth, and nobody using it.

May 19 2009

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Tue, 19 May 2009 16:09:54 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

 bearophile wrote:
 Forth interpreters can be very small, it's a very flexible language,
 you can metaprogram it almost as Lisp, and if implemented well it can
 be efficient (surely more than interpreter Basic, but less than
 handwritten asm. You can have an optimizing Forth in probably less
 than 4-5 KB).
 
 But the people was waiting/asking for the Basic Language, most people
 didn't know Forth, Basic was common in schools, so Basic was the
 language shipped inside the machine, instead of Forth: 
 http://www.npsnet.com/danf/cbm/languages.html#FORTH
 
 The Commodore 64 with built-in Forth instead of Basic may have driven
 computer science in a quite different direction.
 
 Do you agree?


 I remember lots of talk about Forth, and nobody using it.


It can quickly degenerate into a write-only language because it encourages
one to extend the syntax, and even semantics, of the language. It takes
extreme discipline to make a Forth program maintainable by anyone other
than the original author. 

The other difficulty with it is that most people don't use Reverse Polish
Notation often enough for it to become second nature, thus making it hard
for people to read a Forth program and 'see' what its trying to do.

However, it has its own elegance and simplicity that can be very alluring.
I see it as the Circe of programming languages.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

May 19 2009

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

Not even this book cover could save Forth!

http://www.globalnerdy.com/2007/09/14/reimagining-programming-book-covers/

May 19 2009

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Not even this book cover could save Forth!
 
 http://www.globalnerdy.com/2007/09/14/reimagining-programming-book-covers/


Hehe...

And of course the Ruby book has the obligatory distasteful sexual 
reference.

Only today I was reading another book on Rails and within the third page 
I got the notion that good website development is like good porn: you 
know it when you see it. Yeah, you've apparently seen to much of it. Get 
a date. :o/

I'm all for sexual jokes, but give me a break with "the lucky stiff". 
The subtler the better. I made one such joke in a talk at ACCU, and it 
took people 30 seconds to even suspect it. (Walter of course got it in a 
femtosecond.)


Andrei

May 19 2009

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:

On 20/05/2009 02:12, Walter Bright wrote:
 Not even this book cover could save Forth!

 http://www.globalnerdy.com/2007/09/14/reimagining-programming-book-covers/


Ah, Julie Bell and Boris Vallejo, one (well, two) of my favorite fantasy 
artists, they're pretty awesome.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

Jul 27 2010

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

bearophile wrote:
 Walter Bright:
 The 6502 is an 8 bit processor, the 8088 is 16 bits. All 8 bit 
 processors were a terrible fit for C, which was designed for 16 bit
  CPUs. Everyone who coded professional apps for the 6502, 6800,
 8080 and Z80 (all 8 bit CPUs) wrote in assembler. (Including
 myself.)


 Forth interpreters can be very small, it's a very flexible language,
 you can metaprogram it almost as Lisp, and if implemented well it can
 be efficient (surely more than interpreter Basic, but less than
 handwritten asm. You can have an optimizing Forth in probably less
 than 4-5 KB).
 
 But the people was waiting/asking for the Basic Language, most people
 didn't know Forth, Basic was common in schools, so Basic was the
 language shipped inside the machine, instead of Forth: 
 http://www.npsnet.com/danf/cbm/languages.html#FORTH
 
 The Commodore 64 with built-in Forth instead of Basic may have driven
 computer science in a quite different direction.
 
 Do you agree?


Forth isn't exactly user friendly, whereas any housewife could at least 
pretend to almost understand some of Daddy's Basic code. :-)

C-64 with Forth, no market.

An example is HP. They made a super cool calculator (almost computer) 
that was Forth programmable. Few bought it, and even fewer bothered to 
program in Forth. Even the 28S that I've got, has a Forth dialect, but 
most people only did algebra stuff on it.

Bootstrapping an new system, that's where Forth really shines. But 
today's programmers are so set in the collective mindset of the popular 
programming languages, that the change of perspective Forth requires, 
will feel too tedious. People become lazy.

But had the C-64 come with Simon's Basic (which was an expensive add-on 
that very few bought, mostly because they didn't understand its vast 
difference to "regular" Basic), less people would have quit programming 
at the 1000 line mark. They just thought it was hard, or that they 
weren't smart enough.

---------

Heck, I just remembered, I've got a Forth cartridge for the VIC-20 
somewhere! Oh, maybe some rainy day I'll do some time travel!! :-)

May 19 2009

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede iki.fi> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Georg Wrede wrote:
 In the Good Old Days (when it was usual for an average programmer to 
 write parts of the code in ASM (that was the time before the late 
 eighties -- be it Basic, Pascal, or even C, some parts had to be done 
 in ASM to help a bearable user experience when the mainframes had less 
 power than today's MP3 players), the ASM programing was very different 
 on, say, Zilog, MOS, or Motorola processors. The rumor was that the 
 6502 was made for hand coded ASM, whereas the 8088 was more geared 
 towards automatic code generation (as in C commpilers, etc.). My 
 experiences of both certainly seemed to support this.


 The 6502 is an 8 bit processor, the 8088 is 16 bits. All 8 bit 
 processors were a terrible fit for C, which was designed for 16 bit 
 CPUs. Everyone who coded professional apps for the 6502, 6800, 8080 and 
 Z80 (all 8 bit CPUs) wrote in assembler. (Including myself.)


Sloppy me, 8080 was what I meant, instead of the 8088. My bad.

And you're right about ASM coding. But over here, with smaller software 
companies, stuff was done win S-Basic (does anyone even know that one 
anymore???), C-Basic, and Turbo Pascal. Ron Cain's SmallC wasn't really 
up to anything serious, and C wasn't all that well known around here 
then. But Turbo Pascal was already at 3.0 in 1985, and a good 
investment, because using it was the same on the pre-PC computers and 
the then new IBM-PC.

 If we were smart with D, we'd find out a way of leapfrogging this 
 thinking. We have a language that's more powerful than any of C#, Java 
 or C++, more practical than Haskell, Scheme, Ruby, &co, and more 
 maintainable than C or Perl, but which *still* is Human Writable. All 
 we need is some outside-of-the-box thinking, and we might reap some 
 overwhelming advantages when we combine *this* language with the IDEs 
 and the horsepower that the modern drone takes for granted.

 Easier parsing, CTFE, actually usable templates, practical mixins, 
 pure functions, safe code, you name it! We have all the bits and 
 pieces to really make writing + IDE assisted program authoring, a 
 superior reality.


 Right, but I can't think of any IDE feature that would be a bad fit for 
 using the filesystem to store the D source modules.


I remember writing something about it here, like 7 years ago. But today 
there are others who have newer opinions about it. I haven't thought 
about it since then.

I wonder how a seasoned template author would describe what the most 
welcome help would be when writing serious templates?

May 19 2009

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Georg,

 I wonder how a seasoned template author would describe what the most
 welcome help would be when writing serious templates?
 


"Breakpoint debugging" of template explanation. Pick a template, feed it 
values and see (as in syntax highlighting and foreach unrolling) what happens. 
Pick an invoked template and dive in. Real breakpoint debugging of CTFE where 
it will stop on the line that is not CTFEable.

Oh and auto complete that works with meta but doesn't fall over on it's side 
twiching with larger systems.

May 19 2009

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Oh and auto complete that works with meta but doesn't fall over on it's 
 side twiching with larger systems.


:-) It's getting better, slowly.

May 19 2009

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Robert,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Oh and auto complete that works with meta but doesn't fall over on
 it's side twiching with larger systems.
 


 


I can get you some test cases if you want... :-)

May 19 2009

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Tue, 19 May 2009 18:59:59 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 Do you really think implementing a *good* IDE for D is easy now? :-P
  (of course Descent works in this case, but just because it has the  
 full dmdfe in it... so basically a good IDE will need to be able to do  
 CTFE, instantiante templates, etc., and all of those things are kind of  
 unclear in the specification of the D language, so if you don't use  
 dmdfe... well... I hope you get my point)


 The dmdfe is available, so one doesn't have to recreate it. That makes  
 it easy :-)


The source to gcc is available, so that makes porting gcc to another  
platform easy.

-Steve

May 19 2009

D Programming

C/C++ Programming

Other

digitalmars.D - Re: project oriented