www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Why is D unpopular?

reply Ali <fakeemail example.com> writes:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/axslxubumvtrudpjfpng forum.dlang.org

I think its really bad, that this is the most active topic on the 
forum


use a better forum sotware and moderate
and when topics like this get too active just close the thread
and archive it

D have a small community
these topics really drain the energy of the D community

If a new forum is not an option (which i think it isnt)
maybe let the forum run dry (i.e. dont reply, at least not to 
threads like this one),
and switch to discord or slack
May 29 2022
next sibling parent reply monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:

 maybe let the forum run dry (i.e. dont reply, at least not to 
 threads like this one),


great work starting the 5th version of the thread :3
May 29 2022
parent reply bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 04:03:39 UTC, monkyyy wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:

 maybe let the forum run dry (i.e. dont reply, at least not to 
 threads like this one),


 great work starting the 5th version of the thread :3


It's my turn to post it tomorrow!
May 29 2022
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 06:14:43 UTC, bauss wrote:

 It's my turn to post it tomorrow!


Can you also post these:
- Language X stole all of D’s features
- D should copy all features from language X
- this is why C++ is much worse than D
- D is just like C++
- somebody mentioned D on reddit
- D needs a new forum
- D would be more popular if the website was in a different colour
- D would be more popular if the forums were dead
- Why are the forums dead?
- Is D dead, the forums are dead?
- People need to stop complaining about D
- Why have people stopped caring about D?
- D is run by a foundation
- D is community driven
- D is letting too many people have their say
- D is run by nobody, needs better management
- D is essentially run by one person
- We need a communist revolution
- We need a fascist regime
- DIP1000
May 30 2022
next sibling parent Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 07:23:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

 [...]


Ha ha ha! You nailed it!
May 30 2022
prev sibling next sibling parent reply JN <666total wp.pl> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 07:23:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

 - We need a communist revolution
 - We need a fascist regime
 - DIP1000


this escalated quickly
May 30 2022
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 09:38:09 UTC, JN wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 07:23:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
 wrote:

 - We need a communist revolution
 - We need a fascist regime
 - DIP1000


 this escalated quickly


Yes, that juxtaposition was unfair, let's soften it up:

- We need something unique, just like Rust
- DIP1000
- We don't need DIP1000, it is too much like Rust
- DIP1000 isn't good enough, let us replicate Rust
- Why are so many features incomplete?
May 30 2022
parent reply IGotD- <nise nise.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 09:59:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

 Yes, that juxtaposition was unfair, let's soften it up:

 - We need something unique, just like Rust
 - DIP1000
 - We don't need DIP1000, it is too much like Rust
 - DIP1000 isn't good enough, let us replicate Rust
 - Why are so many features incomplete?


I agree with this and I dislike the trend with increasing 
mandatory usage of attributes/badging. If you like that you are 
probably already using Rust.


ease of use D should work towards.
For those who like overcomplicated languages, there are several 
that offer that.
May 30 2022
parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 11:14:21 UTC, IGotD- wrote:


 the ease of use D should work towards.
 For those who like overcomplicated languages, there are several 
 that offer that.


Yes, I started to look at D 15 years ago because I wanted 
something simpler and more productive than C++.

D is quite close all it needs is:

- smart, non-intrusive memory management that is non-blocking
- some makeup on syntax
- complete some features (like alias)

How that is done is less important as long as it is simple and 
clean. The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence, 
and all that…
May 30 2022
parent reply Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 11:28:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

 Yes, I started to look at D 15 years ago because I wanted 
 something simpler and more productive than C++.

 D is quite close all it needs is:

 - smart, non-intrusive memory management that is non-blocking
 - some makeup on syntax
 - complete some features (like alias)

 How that is done is less important as long as it is simple and 
 clean. The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence, 
 and all that…


All D needs is an automated way of blocking and censoring forum 
threads that talk about D's shortcomings. I wonder why these 
threads are often so "active". Then again, when it comes to very 
active threads, how will the software be able to distinguish 
between a thread that is "too active" because of users giving out 
about or defending D and a very active thread about some DIP that 
wants to introduce feature X from language Y, a thread that will 
"drain the energy of the D community" (Ali) and will most likely 
amount to nothing, except perhaps that some code will break with 
the next iteration of DMD, because, you know, this is needed to 
pave the way for the DIP to become reality in 5-10 years - if a 
champion can be found, that is.
May 30 2022
next sibling parent reply Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 12:38:31 UTC, Chris wrote:

 All D needs is an automated way of blocking and censoring forum 
 threads that talk about D's shortcomings. I wonder why these 
 threads are often so "active".


More importantly, it is necessary to create a shared vision, and 
the ebb and flow of what people want and don't want will 
hopefully give some guidance of where the gravity is.

At the very least it will bring attention to promising projects 
like SDC, so if people with the same vision back that project 
then something will materialize over time. Of course, if random 
people join SDC with completely different visions, then the same 
issues will be transferred there… so for SDC to succeed building 
of a shared vision has to happen somewhere. Most likely in these 
forums, but who knows?

(It is important to get rid of name-calling and unmoderated 
shutdowns, because that is far more intimidating than someone 
worrying about something factual. People generally want enter a 
community if it is low threshold and open-minded. So off-topic 
threads are actually good, they lowers the bar for entry. High 
activity is also good. People in general have a poor 
understanding of the dynamics of online communities, because they 
view the world through a narrow lens.)
May 30 2022
next sibling parent reply Martin B <martin.brzenska googlemail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 13:00:36 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

[...]vision has to happen somewhere. Most likely in these 
forums[...]


I think this forums usability is too worse to be used in a 
productive manner - IMO it's just good enough to serve as a place 
for flame wars, unload ones anger, complain etc. This thread is a 
good example for it.
May 30 2022
parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 15:55:05 UTC, Martin B wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 13:00:36 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
 wrote:

[...]vision has to happen somewhere. Most likely in these 
forums[...]


 I think this forums usability is too worse to be used in a 
 productive manner


The learn forum is very productive as far as I can tell, and I 
think this forum has been quite productive lately. I've learned 
that Feeble would chime in if someone started on something that 
could be come D3. That is valuable to know. I see that people 
have wanted to take a look at the SDC github repo, so there is 
some more interest. I've seen that deadalnix has the same basic 
foundation for a vision that I believe many with an interest in 
compilers could follow. If we get 5-10 people with enough 
interest in CS-theory (not necessarily formal, but enough to pick 
up a book or two) then we are in a good spot and things could 
follow a growth pattern that is better than linear. It is also 
quite clear that it isn't possible to bring everyone single 
person in the forums on to the same page so what deadalnix says 
and how an emerging vision for SDC is framed in the context of 
the last 10 years of DMD evoltionary history, including current 
trends, is quite important when building a SDC team.

If everyone are on the same page then movement becomes so much 
easier… So clustering people with the same viewpoints and channel 
them to SDC is a make or break situation IMO.

Everyone has the right to disagree with this viewpoint, of 
course, we'll see…
May 30 2022
prev sibling parent reply Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 13:00:36 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 12:38:31 UTC, Chris wrote:

 [...]


 More importantly, it is necessary to create a shared vision, 
 and the ebb and flow of what people want and don't want will 
 hopefully give some guidance of where the gravity is.

 [...]


I should probably have closed my comment with /sarc or prefixed 
it with "⸮" [1] ;)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation
May 31 2022
parent Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:47:08 UTC, Chris wrote:

 I should probably have closed my comment with /sarc or prefixed 
 it with "⸮" [1] ;)


Yeah, I took it as irony, but just in case others didn't…

Anyway, let us hope there is a subset of people in the forum who, 
through dialogue, can evolve a compatible vision. Then maybe we 
will see something great come out of it. A compiler base that 
also can provide competitive IDE tooling.
May 31 2022
prev sibling parent IGotD- <nise nise.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 12:38:31 UTC, Chris wrote:

 All D needs is an automated way of blocking and censoring forum 
 threads that talk about D's shortcomings. I wonder why these 
 threads are often so "active". Then again, when it comes to 
 very active threads, how will the software be able to 
 distinguish between a thread that is "too active" because of 
 users giving out about or defending D and a very active thread 
 about some DIP that wants to introduce feature X from language 
 Y, a thread that will "drain the energy of the D community" 
 (Ali) and will most likely amount to nothing, except perhaps 
 that some code will break with the next iteration of DMD, 
 because, you know, this is needed to pave the way for the DIP 
 to become reality in 5-10 years - if a champion can be found, 
 that is.


I general I'm against censorship and anyone should have the 
opportunity to objectively criticize something, suggest 
improvements, suggest features that exist in other languages and 
so on. Naturally with computer languages there are thousands of 
different opinions, that's how it is. Does it drain the D 
project? No, I don't think so it livens it up.

I'm also active at other language forums there are similarities 
there. There are always different opinions. I have often 
disagreed with the main author of the language. One thing that 
sets this forum apart is that it less hands on questions, like 
how do I do X in D.

Maybe we should have more subforums in order to isolate the 
discussions. Maybe an "interals" forums for the language and 
standard library. Also modern forum software helps, I think this 
forum is too old. Just that I cannot edit my typos afterwards is 
enough for me wanting better forum SW.
May 30 2022
prev sibling parent reply deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 07:23:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 06:14:43 UTC, bauss wrote:

 It's my turn to post it tomorrow!


 Can you also post these:
 - Language X stole all of D’s features
 - D should copy all features from language X
 - this is why C++ is much worse than D
 - D is just like C++
 - somebody mentioned D on reddit
 - D needs a new forum
 - D would be more popular if the website was in a different 
 colour
 - D would be more popular if the forums were dead
 - Why are the forums dead?
 - Is D dead, the forums are dead?
 - People need to stop complaining about D
 - Why have people stopped caring about D?
 - D is run by a foundation
 - D is community driven
 - D is letting too many people have their say
 - D is run by nobody, needs better management
 - D is essentially run by one person
 - We need a communist revolution
 - We need a fascist regime
 - DIP1000


I love it.

It kinda reminds me that politic arise from the failure of 
technology. If we could make car that can drive 100% safely at 
1000000km/h, then we wouldn't see the need for speed limit.
May 30 2022
parent reply mee6 <mee6 lookat.me> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 16:05:52 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 07:23:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
 wrote:

 [...]


 I love it.

 It kinda reminds me that politic arise from the failure of 
 technology. If we could make car that can drive 100% safely at 
 1000000km/h, then we wouldn't see the need for speed limit.


High speed trains? The car was a mistake, building cities around 
cars like they do in America adds onto that mistake.
May 30 2022
parent reply deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 16:45:45 UTC, mee6 wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 16:05:52 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 07:23:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
 wrote:

 [...]


 I love it.

 It kinda reminds me that politic arise from the failure of 
 technology. If we could make car that can drive 100% safely at 
 1000000km/h, then we wouldn't see the need for speed limit.


 High speed trains? The car was a mistake, building cities 
 around cars like they do in America adds onto that mistake.


Ha, and this one:

  - "D is not making the progress it could because the community 
focuses on unimportant problems that don't move the needle much."
  - "High speed trains? The car was a mistake, building cities 
around cars like they do in America adds onto that mistake."
May 30 2022
parent reply mee6 <mee6 lookat.me> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 17:22:04 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 16:45:45 UTC, mee6 wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 16:05:52 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 07:23:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
 wrote:

 [...]


 I love it.

 It kinda reminds me that politic arise from the failure of 
 technology. If we could make car that can drive 100% safely 
 at 1000000km/h, then we wouldn't see the need for speed limit.


 High speed trains? The car was a mistake, building cities 
 around cars like they do in America adds onto that mistake.


 Ha, and this one:

  - "D is not making the progress it could because the community 
 focuses on unimportant problems that don't move the needle 
 much."
  - "High speed trains? The car was a mistake, building cities 
 around cars like they do in America adds onto that mistake."


Lol I know right, some people idolize cars so much they can't see 
a different way to live. Hail Satan.

For D, it really is spread out thin. Only D had 2 standard 
libraries. Only D has 3 separate compilers. Copying rust with 
 live when D has a GC.
May 30 2022
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh qfbox.info> writes:
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 06:34:54PM +0000, mee6 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]

 For D, it really is spread out thin. Only D had 2 standard libraries.
 Only D has 3 separate compilers.


I honestly can't understand why this keeps coming up. There has not been
2 standard libraries for at least 10 years, and yet this historical
spectre never ceases to return from the grave at regular intervals.

And D is the only language where having multiple compilers is said to be
a bad thing.  C, for example, probably has hundreds of different
compilers, yet we never hear anyone complain about why C is bad because
it has so many compilers.  Or C++, for that matter.  Yet for D this is
somehow one of the biggest nails in its supposed coffin.  Tellingly
enough, back in the days when dmd was the only compiler, people were
singing lamentations on why having only one compiler was bad.  And now
this.  Let the reader draw his own conclusions. ;-)

I'm really tempted to use the T word here, but I'll refrain. :-P



 Copying rust with  live when D has a GC.


Yeah, this one definitely feels bolted on after the fact.  A lot of core
features in D were designed with GC in mind, and the recent efforts to
reverse that heritage (or at least make it optional anyway) has led to
nothing but pain, friction, and compounding language complexity.  But
hey, the customer clamors for no GC / optional GC, so what can one say?
Reminds me of that joke about ordering spaghetti without the noodles...


T

-- 
Answer: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. / Question: Why
is top posting bad?
May 30 2022
parent reply forkit <forkit gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 18:58:38 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 ...
 And D is the only language where having multiple compilers is 
 said to be a bad thing.  C, for example, probably has hundreds 
 of different compilers, yet we never hear anyone complain about 
 why C is bad because it has so many compilers.  Or C++, for 
 that matter.  Yet for D this is somehow one of the biggest 
 nails in its supposed coffin.  Tellingly enough, back in the 
 days when dmd was the only compiler, people were singing 
 lamentations on why having only one compiler was bad.  And now 
 this.  Let the reader draw his own conclusions. ;-)
 ...


The problem with 'multiple compilers' is the concept of 
'implementation defined' behaviours.

With a single compiler, implementation defined behaviours, which 
would of course exist, are contained to the 'one' compiler, which 

is a prime example), as well as the compiler developers and the 
language designers.

Of course people like Stroustrup strongly support and argue for 
the idea of multiple compilers, but his views/arguments really 
reflect the legacy of C and C++. I don't know that they are 
relevant to the future ;-)

I don't argue against multiple compilers per se. I argue against 
compilers having 'different' definitions of behaviours of the 
same language.

I would like to understand whether this is also a problem with 
the D programming language (I don't know that it is, but I'd like 
to know). If it is a problem, then (to keep in context with the 
subject of this thread), perhaps it is a reason why D is 
unpopular, given the problems it has created in the C/C++ world 
of programming.
May 30 2022
next sibling parent forkit <forkit gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 02:07:53 UTC, forkit wrote:


"The more than a hundred implementation-defined behaviors 
underpins the fact that no meaning can be assigned to source code 
unless full details about the build process and the toolchain 
employed are available."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqdDbB07RUo



 May 30 2022



prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh qfbox.info>  writes:


On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:07:53AM +0000, forkit via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 18:58:38 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 ...
 And D is the only language where having multiple compilers is said
 to be a bad thing.  C, for example, probably has hundreds of
 different compilers, yet we never hear anyone complain about why C
 is bad because it has so many compilers.  Or C++, for that matter.
 Yet for D this is somehow one of the biggest nails in its supposed
 coffin.  Tellingly enough, back in the days when dmd was the only
 compiler, people were singing lamentations on why having only one
 compiler was bad.  And now this.  Let the reader draw his own
 conclusions. ;-)
 ...


 
 The problem with 'multiple compilers' is the concept of
 'implementation defined' behaviours.


Portable coding practices dictate that code should not rely on
implementation-defined behaviours.  If you write code that does, be
prepared for it to be non-portable.



 With a single compiler, implementation defined behaviours, which would
 of course exist, are contained to the 'one' compiler, which has

 prime example), as well as the compiler developers and the language
 designers.


The disadvantage is that the code will rely on said
implementation-defined behaviours, resulting in vendor lock-in.



 Of course people like Stroustrup strongly support and argue for the
 idea of multiple compilers, but his views/arguments really reflect the
 legacy of C and C++. I don't know that they are relevant to the future
 ;-)
 
 I don't argue against multiple compilers per se. I argue against
 compilers having 'different' definitions of behaviours of the same
 language.


The language spec (ideally) dictates mandatory behaviours, and indicates
which construct(s) may have implementation-defined behaviours. If you're
writing code intended to target multiple runtime environments, you avoid
using these constructs.



 I would like to understand whether this is also a problem with the D
 programming language (I don't know that it is, but I'd like to know).
 If it is a problem, then (to keep in context with the subject of this
 thread), perhaps it is a reason why D is unpopular, given the problems
 it has created in the C/C++ world of programming.


Your second sentence doesn't from the first, logically.  What has
implementation-defined behaviours got to do with popularity?  When one
talks about popularity, the first thing that comes to mind is the
question "is language X used by my best friend and my friend's best
friend? If not, it sux. If yes, it must be cool, I'll use it."  It has
little, if anything, to do with technical issues like
implementation-defined behaviours.  Nobody is gonna go "OMG Java has no
implementation-defined behaviours, it must be the best language in the
world!!!!111ROTFLMAOBBQ".  It's not even a consideration as far as
popularity is concerned.

But that aside, D has a lot of facilities built in to help you make your
code maximally portable.

- Fixed sizes for integral types, for example, are a prime example of
  where D shines over C/C++. In C, `int` can mean anything from a 16-bit
  value to a 64-bit value (according to the spec anyway), and char is
  ("at least 8 bits wide", but could be wider). This leads to all sorts
  of silliness like stdint.h that has to spell out
  implementation-defined typedefs just so people can write int16_t to be
  100% sure they are the expected size. In D, `short` is ALWAYS 16 bits,
  so you write `short` once, and you get a 16-bit value, and never have
  to worry about "what if on some weird platform `short` is actually 8
  bits?".  And don't get me started on printf %d specs, which may have
  to be written %ld or %lld depending on whether your implementation
  makes `long` 32-bit or 64-bit long. In D, `long` is ALWAYS 64-bits.
  End of story. No need for stdint.h, no need for insanity like
  `printf("%"PRIu64"\n", var);` just to get the right print format.
  Heck, std.format.format lets you write "%d" for ALL integral types.
  Nonsense like %ld and %lld don't even need to exist in D.

- Then you have std.bitmanip.nativeToBigEndian, et al, to help you deal
  with byte order issues. It deliberately returns char[n] instead of
  native int types, so that you never accidentally swap byte order more
  than once in your conversions.

- Then there are modules like std.process that abstract away much of the
  OS-dependent details of spawning a subprocess, etc.. Details that
  you'd have to grapple with manually in C/C++.

These are just random items in no particular order that came to mind. D
is quite far ahead of C/C++ in terms of reducing implementation-defined
behaviour.  I think it's unfair to just lump it with C/C++ in terms of
"problems caused by implementation-defined behaviour".  To be frank, NO
language is 100% free of implementation-defined behaviours.  (Yes, even
Java.)  The only ones that are, are academic toys that have no real
world applications.  As long as you're interacting with the real world
in some way, there WILL be implementation-defined behaviours.

But all that is besides the point.  I've had my projects compiled with
all 3 D compilers without any problems or weirdnesses caused by
differences in implementation-defined behaviours.  In fact, I freely
switch between DMD and LDC when writing D code in the same project --
DMD for the compilation speed, LDC for the runtime speed.  I've never
run into a case where testing something with DMD exhibited different
behaviour from the final executable produced by LDC.  I'm pretty sure
there *are* some cases where you might run into some differences -- but
so far, I haven't encountered any yet.  And I do write a fair amount of
D code.  So this whole hangup about implementation-defined behaviours is
IMO unduly exaggerated.

And more to the original point: back in the day when D had only one
compiler, the naysayers said that it was the sign that the D ecosystem
is small and immature, that's why it only has 1 compiler.  Now that we
have 3+ compilers (soon to be 4 once SDC gets more release-ready), the
naysayers say that it's the reason D is small and unpopular.

I have just one word to describe this: strawman.


T

-- 
Creativity is not an excuse for sloppiness.



 May 30 2022



  parent reply yl <yilabscom gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 02:47:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:07:53AM +0000, forkit via

 With a single compiler, implementation defined behaviours, 
 which would of course exist, are contained to the 'one' 
 compiler, which has obvious benefits for developers, and their 

 developers and the language designers.


 The disadvantage is that the code will rely on said 
 implementation-defined behaviours, resulting in vendor lock-in.


Apart from that, one can use multiple compilers to check if 
his/her code are standard compliant. Sometimes, I can find 
problems/bugs in my code that way, since different compilers 
provide different error / warning messages (esp. C++). If my code 
can pass all the compilers without warnings, my code is more 
likely to be robust.



 May 31 2022



  parent  forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 18:42:49 UTC, yl wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 02:47:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:07:53AM +0000, forkit via

 With a single compiler, implementation defined behaviours, 
 which would of course exist, are contained to the 'one' 
 compiler, which has obvious benefits for developers, and 

 compiler developers and the language designers.


 The disadvantage is that the code will rely on said 
 implementation-defined behaviours, resulting in vendor lock-in.


 Apart from that, one can use multiple compilers to check if 
 his/her code are standard compliant. Sometimes, I can find 
 problems/bugs in my code that way, since different compilers 
 provide different error / warning messages (esp. C++). If my 
 code can pass all the compilers without warnings, my code is 
 more likely to be robust.


On the otherhand, when there is one compiler, which everyone 
uses, then that compiler has the opportunity to have been very 
well tested, over time, and hence vastly more reliable.

This is because users/developers/contributors would all 
using/contributing to the same source base, and hence, over-time, 
that source base is far better off because it doesn't have to 
compete with other source repositories.

So there are real world benefits in there being one compiler to 
rule them all.

Not that I'm making the argument for there to be one compiler, 
cause i'm not against multiple compilers - especially for certain 
languagers (like C/C++).



 May 31 2022



prev sibling next sibling parent  monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 02:07:53 UTC, forkit wrote:

 The problem with 'multiple compilers' is the concept of 
 'implementation defined' behaviours.


I for one like gnuisms. Multi compilers pulling in different 
directions move people forward and makes for some degree of 
accountability for the answer "its to complex to implement", and 
you're using the product of such a thing; c++ and d probably 
wouldn't exist if people didn't modify 100 c compilers with 100 
different takes.

Deprecating dual context in dmd was a gigantic mistake and 
honestly SDC or something needs to get usable eventually or else 
whats d going to do, limit itself to only safe changes?



 May 30 2022



prev sibling next sibling parent  Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 02:07:53 UTC, forkit wrote:

 Of course people like Stroustrup strongly support and argue for 
 the idea of multiple compilers, but his views/arguments really 
 reflect the legacy of C and C++. I don't know that they are 
 relevant to the future ;-)

 I don't argue against multiple compilers per se. I argue 
 against compilers having 'different' definitions of behaviours 
 of the same language.


The sole point of having muliple independent implementations is 
to make sure that the language standard spec is complete. D does 
not have that...



 May 30 2022



prev sibling  parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 02:07:53 UTC, forkit wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 18:58:38 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

 ...
 And D is the only language where having multiple compilers is 
 said to be a bad thing.  C, for example, probably has hundreds 
 of different compilers, yet we never hear anyone complain 
 about why C is bad because it has so many compilers.  Or C++, 
 for that matter.  Yet for D this is somehow one of the biggest 
 nails in its supposed coffin.  Tellingly enough, back in the 
 days when dmd was the only compiler, people were singing 
 lamentations on why having only one compiler was bad.  And now 
 this.  Let the reader draw his own conclusions. ;-)
 ...


 The problem with 'multiple compilers' is the concept of 
 'implementation defined' behaviours.

 With a single compiler, implementation defined behaviours, 
 which would of course exist, are contained to the 'one' 
 compiler, which has obvious benefits for developers, and their 

 developers and the language designers.

 Of course people like Stroustrup strongly support and argue for 
 the idea of multiple compilers, but his views/arguments really 
 reflect the legacy of C and C++. I don't know that they are 
 relevant to the future ;-)

 I don't argue against multiple compilers per se. I argue 
 against compilers having 'different' definitions of behaviours 
 of the same language.

 I would like to understand whether this is also a problem with 
 the D programming language (I don't know that it is, but I'd 
 like to know). If it is a problem, then (to keep in context 
 with the subject of this thread), perhaps it is a reason why D 
 is unpopular, given the problems it has created in the C/C++ 
 world of programming.



Meadow, CosmOS, Unity IL2CPP/Burst DOTS,....

Java => OpenJDK, OpenJ9, ExcelsiorJET, PTC, Aicas JamaicaVM, 
HP-UX JVM, Aix JVM, microEJ, ART, Ricoh JVM, GraalVM, ...

Python => CPython, JPython, IronPython, MicroPython, 
CircuitPython, PyPI, GraalVM Python,...

Go => G9, gcc-go, TinyGo, TamaGo,...

Rust => Rust LLVM, rustc_codegen_gcc, gccrs, Miri, Cranelift

Pascal => Apple Pascal, Turbo Pascal, Quick Pascal, VMS Pascal, 
Quick Pascal, Delphi, FreePascal

No it isn't a C problem, rather quite common in the industry for 
mature languages.



 May 30 2022



  parent reply forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 06:54:17 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:


 AOT, Meadow, CosmOS, Unity IL2CPP/Burst DOTS,....


I am not against multiple compilers.
I am not against multiple compilers.
I am not against multiple compilers.
I am not against multiple compilers.
I am not against multiple compilers.

Is everyone clear now?

Once more, just in case:
I am not against multiple compilers.


compilers ??

Also, you're argument is incomplete. To what extent do all those 

'implementation defined' behaviours for precisely the same code? 
(That's a question not a statement).


 No it isn't a C problem, rather quite common in the industry 
 for mature languages.


Are you saying having different compilers is not a problem? If so 
I agree (as I've made clear many times now).

If on the otherhand, you're saying that 'implementation defined' 
behaviour for precisely the same code, is not a problem, then I 
DO NOT agree.

It IS a problem - that has to be explicately managed by the 
developer (I'm referring specifically to C/C++ here of course, as 
I regularly have to switch compilers).

I do not know to what extent this might be a problem with the D 
programming language. I just posed the question. That's all.

I guess it depends on the completeness of the specification of 
the language.



 May 31 2022



 next sibling parent reply forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:27:17 UTC, forkit wrote:




The primary reason I like using it, is because I only ever have 
to work with one compiler. I'm not against multiple compilers, as 
I've already stated. But I like the assurance of only ever 
needing to use one compiler (particulary in a business 
environment where business like expectations exist around 
support, maintenance etc).

Now if I'm the only one in the world who feels that way, I'd be 
suprised.

When I see a language the explicately sprouts how many compilers 
it has, I get a little concerned, due to my experience with C.

Just 'the perception' (the reality might be different) that I 
might have to deal with 'implementation defined' behaviour in D's 
various compilers, is enough to trigger PTSD.



 May 31 2022



 next sibling parent reply bauss <jj_1337 live.dk>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:45:31 UTC, forkit wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:27:17 UTC, forkit wrote:




 The primary reason I like using it, is because I only ever have 
 to work with one compiler.




before dotnet core, where you absolutely had to use other 
compilers if you wanted to write code for any other platforms 
than Windows.



 May 31 2022



  parent reply forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:48:54 UTC, bauss wrote:


 before dotnet core, where you absolutely had to use other 
 compilers if you wanted to write code for any other platforms 
 than Windows.


In the world I live in (which maybe different to yours), there is 



every single one, but a majority) - since the majority would have 
been developing on Windows anyway.

When I goto the D download page, I have to immediately make a 
choice from one of three compilers, even for the same platform.



 May 31 2022



 next sibling parent reply bauss <jj_1337 live.dk>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:27:11 UTC, forkit wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:48:54 UTC, bauss wrote:


 before dotnet core, where you absolutely had to use other 
 compilers if you wanted to write code for any other platforms 
 than Windows.


 In the world I live in (which maybe different to yours), there 



 (not every single one, but a majority) - since the majority 
 would have been developing on Windows anyway.

 When I goto the D download page, I have to immediately make a 
 choice from one of three compilers, even for the same platform.


That's just ignorance at play.

Anyone who uses .NET Framework isn't using the same compiler as 
anyone who uses dotnet core or .NET 6 for that matter.



let's you pick and choose.

You have a really bad take on this, I'm not even trying to bad 



as simplified as you make it.

The reason why you don't see it is because you probably use 
Visual Studio, which is a massive bundle of compilers and tools.



 May 31 2022



  parent reply forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:47:13 UTC, bauss wrote:

 That's just ignorance at play.


Well you're sure being picky in what you respond to.


ignorance, that's fact!

Of course, I (still) program against .NET Framework, not .NET 
Core.

I use VS if I need a gui in my app, but for console programs, I 


But even if I programmed against .NET Core, instead of .NET 

(regardless of the platform i'm using).

I'm not even aware of another compiler available to me, or why 
I'd even consider it.

Now if I install .NET Core on my computer, then sure, I'd have 2 



use.

On the otherhand, even on the same platform (whether it's Windows 
or Linux - both of which i use extensively), I constantly switch 
between dmd and ldc, to help verify the behaviour of my program 
(cause I don't fully trust either compiler to do what it says its 
going to do). I also do it because I do not know enough about the 
possible 'implementation defined' behaviours in the D programming 
language.



 May 31 2022



 next sibling parent  forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 11:27:44 UTC, forkit wrote:


 use.


Oh. And it's been that way for 22 years (less 5 months ;-)



 May 31 2022



prev sibling  parent reply bauss <jj_1337 live.dk>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 11:27:44 UTC, forkit wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:47:13 UTC, bauss wrote:

 That's just ignorance at play.


 Well you're sure being picky in what you respond to.


 not ignorance, that's fact!

 Of course, I (still) program against .NET Framework, not .NET 
 Core.

 I use VS if I need a gui in my app, but for console programs, I 


 But even if I programmed against .NET Core, instead of .NET 

 (regardless of the platform i'm using).

 I'm not even aware of another compiler available to me, or why 
 I'd even consider it.

 Now if I install .NET Core on my computer, then sure, I'd have 



 use.

 On the otherhand, even on the same platform (whether it's 
 Windows or Linux - both of which i use extensively), I 
 constantly switch between dmd and ldc, to help verify the 
 behaviour of my program (cause I don't fully trust either 
 compiler to do what it says its going to do). I also do it 
 because I do not know enough about the possible 'implementation 
 defined' behaviours in the D programming language.


I could use the exact same argument for D though.

I have only ever used DMD and that has been true for like over a 
decade.

So for me D only has one compiler :)



 May 31 2022



  parent reply forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 13:11:30 UTC, bauss wrote:

 I could use the exact same argument for D though.

 I have only ever used DMD and that has been true for like over 
 a decade.

 So for me D only has one compiler :)


No.I don't believe one can make the same argument for D.

Anyone interested in optimisation for performance, would not be 
using dmd ;-)

Whereas, it would be difficult for anyone to better (or even 

(csc.exe, not dotnet.exe).

Although even that compiler seems to have gotten noticably slower 
over time :-(

I can certainly make the case for why you'd want to use something 
other than dmd for compiling your D code.


compiler (in my use-cases).



 May 31 2022



 next sibling parent  bauss <jj_1337 live.dk>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:46:11 UTC, forkit wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 13:11:30 UTC, bauss wrote:

 I could use the exact same argument for D though.

 I have only ever used DMD and that has been true for like over 
 a decade.

 So for me D only has one compiler :)



 Anyone interested in optimisation for performance, would not be 
 using dmd ;-)


Anyone interested in optimisation for performance, would not be 




 May 31 2022



prev sibling  parent reply bauss <jj_1337 live.dk>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:46:11 UTC, forkit wrote:

 I can certainly make the case for why you'd want to use 
 something other than dmd for compiling your D code.


That's __your__ bias, but not mine.

I don't need anything other than DMD for my code to work 
perfectly fine.

I don't need anything I make to be real-time fast, I can afford a 
couple of MS delays here and there.

I use it mainly for web development, web services and just 
integrations with external systems.



 May 31 2022



 next sibling parent reply Antonio <antonio abrevia.net>  writes:


On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 06:14:43 UTC, bauss wrote:


 I use it mainly for web development, web services and just 
 integrations with external systems.



- What libraries do you use? (I'm curious).

I will begin soon a new "small" internal web project and team is 
"pushing" me to abandon node/typescript in favor of Rust.  I will 
give D a new opportunity (http REST + basic ORM/Mapper over 
Postgress + RabbitMQ + Rest services integration).

I actually use D for scripting tasks and team doesn't understand 
why I'm not using python... "D code syntax is expressive, quickly 
compiled and statically typed. It has well OS integration, formal 
verification with pre/post conditions and easy unittests... " vs 
"python is used everywhere by everybody and you have a lot of 
libraries for everything, including OpenCV in the last version... 
just use it".

Now, I face to "If you really want a statically typed language 
flexible enough, use Rust like everybody does... if Linux can 
introduce Rust as a secondary language, we can too.  There is a 
great community support with up to date well maintained and 
stable libraries for everything".

2 years ago I decided not to use Rust (nor D either) as main 
language (Rust expressiveness is a joke compared with D... but D 
stability on my ubuntu running hunt or vibe.d was a complete 
disaster).

Sorry for the sobs :-p... just wanted to understand how other 
people can deal with such obvious arguments in favor of other 
alternatives ("Mainly: everybody does... your needs will be 
easily covered, and so on...")

Antonio



 Jun 01 2022



 next sibling parent reply IGotD- <nise nise.com>  writes:


On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:02:34 UTC, Antonio wrote:

 2 years ago I decided not to use Rust (nor D either) as main 
 language (Rust expressiveness is a joke compared with D... but 
 D stability on my ubuntu running hunt or vibe.d was a complete 
 disaster).



enough, good language and good for web development.



 Jun 01 2022



 next sibling parent reply forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:26:31 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:02:34 UTC, Antonio wrote:

 2 years ago I decided not to use Rust (nor D either) as main 
 language (Rust expressiveness is a joke compared with D... but 
 D stability on my ubuntu running hunt or vibe.d was a complete 
 disaster).



 enough, good language and good for web development.


It's not just the language. It's the framework the language 
targets.



The framework is what makes it 'popular'.



 Jun 01 2022



  parent reply IGotD- <nise nise.com>  writes:


On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:37:29 UTC, forkit wrote:

 It's not just the language. It's the framework the language 
 targets.



 The framework is what makes it 'popular'.




a work horse.



 Jun 01 2022



  parent  forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:43:45 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:37:29 UTC, forkit wrote:

 It's not just the language. It's the framework the language 
 targets.



 The framework is what makes it 'popular'.



 you are right that the huge amount of good libraries is what 



It's also the tools available to the programmer.

The programmer can 'offload' a great deal of mental work into 
those tools, so the tools do that work instead of you.

I know some people still sprout vi as their tool. I pity them ;-)



 Jun 01 2022



prev sibling  parent  Antonio <antonio abrevia.net>  writes:


On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:26:31 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:02:34 UTC, Antonio wrote:

 2 years ago I decided not to use Rust (nor D either) as main 
 language (Rust expressiveness is a joke compared with D... but 
 D stability on my ubuntu running hunt or vibe.d was a complete 
 disaster).



 enough, good language and good for web development.


No... As soon as I moved to linux (10-12 years ago) I abandoned 




 Jun 01 2022



prev sibling  parent reply bauss <jj_1337 live.dk>  writes:


On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:02:34 UTC, Antonio wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 06:14:43 UTC, bauss wrote:


 I use it mainly for web development, web services and just 
 integrations with external systems.



 - What libraries do you use? (I'm curious).

 Antonio


Vibe.d and requests, depending on the type of project.

For vibe.d I do not use Diet templates, I hate them and I believe 
the whole design and implementation around them was a mistake.



 Jun 01 2022



  parent  Antonio <antonio abrevia.net>  writes:


On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 10:32:13 UTC, bauss wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 09:02:34 UTC, Antonio wrote:

 On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 06:14:43 UTC, bauss wrote:


 I use it mainly for web development, web services and just 
 integrations with external systems.



 - What libraries do you use? (I'm curious).

 Antonio


 Vibe.d and requests, depending on the type of project.

 For vibe.d I do not use Diet templates, I hate them and I 
 believe the whole design and implementation around them was a 
 mistake.


thanks



 Jun 01 2022



prev sibling  parent  forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 06:14:43 UTC, bauss wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 21:46:11 UTC, forkit wrote:

 I can certainly make the case for why you'd want to use 
 something other than dmd for compiling your D code.


 That's __your__ bias, but not mine.

 I don't need anything other than DMD for my code to work 
 perfectly fine.

 I don't need anything I make to be real-time fast, I can afford 
 a couple of MS delays here and there.

 I use it mainly for web development, web services and just 
 integrations with external systems.


No. It's not my bias.

It even states this on the download page:

https://dlang.org/download.html

No point in offering different compilers, if they all did the 
same thing ;-)



 Jun 01 2022



prev sibling  parent  Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:27:11 UTC, forkit wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:48:54 UTC, bauss wrote:


 before dotnet core, where you absolutely had to use other 
 compilers if you wanted to write code for any other platforms 
 than Windows.


 In the world I live in (which maybe different to yours), there 



 (not every single one, but a majority) - since the majority 
 would have been developing on Windows anyway.

 When I goto the D download page, I have to immediately make a 
 choice from one of three compilers, even for the same platform.


Those developing for Windows, that happen to also target UWP 

without some caveats.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/dotnet-native/net-native-and-compilation

And it remains to be seen what constraints Native AOT will bring 
to the table in .NET 7 versus .NET Native.



 May 31 2022



prev sibling  parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:45:31 UTC, forkit wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:27:17 UTC, forkit wrote:




 The primary reason I like using it, is because I only ever have 
 to work with one compiler. I'm not against multiple compilers, 
 as I've already stated. But I like the assurance of only ever 
 needing to use one compiler (particulary in a business 
 environment where business like expectations exist around 
 support, maintenance etc).

 Now if I'm the only one in the world who feels that way, I'd be 
 suprised.

 When I see a language the explicately sprouts how many 
 compilers it has, I get a little concerned, due to my 
 experience with C.

 Just 'the perception' (the reality might be different) that I 
 might have to deal with 'implementation defined' behaviour in 
 D's various compilers, is enough to trigger PTSD.


Unless you happened to have been like myself, working for a 
Microsoft certified partner with access to pre-release builds of 
.NET 1.0, those MSDN CDs with red documentation, I doubt the 22 
years, but who's couting just a couple of months until October 
2023.

https://news.microsoft.com/2001/10/22/massive-industry-and-developer-support-for-microsoft-net-on-display-at-professional-developers-conference-2001


Multiple implementations allow for validation that the compilers 
actually work as per language standard, and do not have tainted 
behaviours.


not even considering MSIL difference between languages targeting 
.NET, the way AOT compilers have worked across the ecosystem it 
means that not all of them can fully compile the whole language, 
for example.

Thus you cannot just pick a random NuGET package drop it into a 
Xamarin build and hop you go into the next iOS app, if it happens 
to use reflection, or generics in a way that Mono AOT cannot 
handle it.


some of their quirks like reflection based access to magic 
MonoBehaviours, isn't something that will find out in Microsoft 
runtimes.

Moving Unity to .NET Core, while being able to target all their 
hardware is going to be a multi-year project.

https://blog.unity.com/technology/unity-and-net-whats-next



 May 31 2022



  parent reply forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 09:19:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Unless you happened to have been like myself, working for a 
 Microsoft certified partner with access to pre-release builds 
 of .NET 1.0, those MSDN CDs with red documentation, I doubt the 
 22 years, but who's couting just a couple of months until 
 October 2023.


Yes, indeed, the company I worked for back then were an MCP, and 
they (the company) provided me with an *full* MSDN subscription 
(which was very expensive back then). This is precisely why I got 

developing when it was in beta (and still use it today).

Before that, it was... grr... grrr.. grrrrrr.... C!


 Multiple implementations allow for validation that the 
 compilers actually work as per language standard, and do not 
 have tainted behaviours.


That is a valid (but different) argument.

The more a language design leaves open the option for 
'implementation defined' behaviour, the more it falls onto 
developers to mangage this - this is why I don't like 
'implementation defined' behaviour.



 May 31 2022



  parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:20:00 UTC, forkit wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 09:19:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Unless you happened to have been like myself, working for a 
 Microsoft certified partner with access to pre-release builds 
 of .NET 1.0, those MSDN CDs with red documentation, I doubt 
 the 22 years, but who's couting just a couple of months until 
 October 2023.


 Yes, indeed, the company I worked for back then were an MCP, 
 and they (the company) provided me with an *full* MSDN 
 subscription (which was very expensive back then). This is 

 early. I was already developing when it was in beta (and still 
 use it today).

 Before that, it was... grr... grrr.. grrrrrr.... C!

 ....


Faire enough.



 May 31 2022



  parent  forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 11:53:32 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 10:20:00 UTC, forkit wrote:

 On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 09:19:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 Unless you happened to have been like myself, working for a 
 Microsoft certified partner with access to pre-release builds 
 of .NET 1.0, those MSDN CDs with red documentation, I doubt 
 the 22 years, but who's couting just a couple of months until 
 October 2023.


 Yes, indeed, the company I worked for back then were an MCP, 
 and they (the company) provided me with an *full* MSDN 
 subscription (which was very expensive back then). This is 

 so early. I was already developing when it was in beta (and 
 still use it today).

 Before that, it was... grr... grrr.. grrrrrr.... C!

 ....


 Faire enough.


I was also one of the first adopters of Visual Basic for DOS (yes 
DOS, not Windows).

Sadly, if it wasn't from Borland, then nobody else in my circle 
at the time, would take it seriously :-(

But it set the stage for what was to some, that's for sure.



 May 31 2022



prev sibling  parent  Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQ=?= <ola.fosheim.grostad gmail.com>  writes:


On Tuesday, 31 May 2022 at 08:27:17 UTC, forkit wrote:

 It IS a problem - that has to be explicately managed by the 
 developer (I'm referring specifically to C/C++ here of course, 
 as I regularly have to switch compilers).


The main problem, I guess, is that most codebases don't stick to 
the standard, but use extensions.

If you stay within the standard you can just check the feature 
matrix:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/20

And test new features using the provided feature testing macros:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/feature_test

Most of the time the docs provide a reference implementation that 
can be used if a library feature is missing.

A reasonable solution, IMO.



 May 31 2022



prev sibling next sibling parent reply Adam D Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:

 use a better forum sotware and moderate


The forum software is fully capable of these things.



 May 30 2022



  parent reply Ali <fakeemail example.com>  writes:


On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 12:09:27 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:

 use a better forum sotware and moderate


 The forum software is fully capable of these things.


Then it should enforced

Archive those bikeshedding threads, ore move them to a 
Section/group that is less visible or below the Development 
Section

We can even call this section Archive, and group BikeShedding
Keeping those discussion under Community/General give them more 
attention and credibility



 May 30 2022



  parent  rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz>  writes:


On 31/05/2022 1:44 PM, Ali wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 12:09:27 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:

 On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:

 use a better forum sotware and moderate


 The forum software is fully capable of these things.


 
 Then it should enforced
 
 Archive those bikeshedding threads, ore move them to a Section/group 
 that is less visible or below the Development Section
 
 We can even call this section Archive, and group BikeShedding
 Keeping those discussion under Community/General give them more 
 attention and credibility


A simpler solution might be to simply hide the replies to all threads 
above a certain number.

Everything still works the same, except its no longer presented to most 
people unless they care.



 May 30 2022



prev sibling next sibling parent  Guillaume Piolat <first.last gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:

 use a better forum sotware and moderate
 and when topics like this get too active just close the thread
 and archive it


+1
It's easy to underestimate how much people won't engage the 
forums because of the vitriol, because well they are silent.



 May 30 2022



prev sibling next sibling parent  forkit <forkit gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:

 https://forum.dlang.org/post/axslxubumvtrudpjfpng forum.dlang.org

 I think its really bad, that this is the most active topic on 
 the forum


 use a better forum sotware and moderate
 and when topics like this get too active just close the thread
 and archive it

 D have a small community
 these topics really drain the energy of the D community

 If a new forum is not an option (which i think it isnt)
 maybe let the forum run dry (i.e. dont reply, at least not to 
 threads like this one),
 and switch to discord or slack


what nonsense. this sounds like something a Rustacean would say 
;-)

It not unusual for a thread, to morph into a multithread. big 
deal.

if it bothers you, just don't read it.

when something on the news bothers me, I just switch it off. I 
don't complain about it being on the news.

also, 'why is D unpopular' is an emotive headline, that 
encourages a lot of response (either way). That's entirely 
expected.

That you just want to shut it down, cause it bothers you, is far 
more concerning to me, that the number of threads i need to read 
(most of which i don't, and in any case, I can choose not to if 
that is preference).

Could it be, that D is unpopular, because of statements like 
yours (wanting to shut down conversations when they get a little 
too active)?

At least I made an attempt to remain on topic ;-)



 May 31 2022



prev sibling next sibling parent  Kita <AideAker gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:

 https://forum.dlang.org/post/axslxubumvtrudpjfpng forum.dlang.org

 I think its really bad, that this is the most active topic on 
 the forum


 use a better forum sotware and moderate
 and when topics like this get too active just close the thread
 and archive it

 D have a small community
 these topics really drain the energy of the D community

 If a new forum is not an option (which i think it isnt)
 maybe let the forum run dry (i.e. dont reply, at least not to 
 threads like this one),
 and switch to discord or slack


Lol, I think it is normal ))



 Jun 01 2022



prev sibling  parent  harakim <harakim gmail.com>  writes:


On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 03:41:24 UTC, Ali wrote:

 https://forum.dlang.org/post/axslxubumvtrudpjfpng forum.dlang.org

 I think its really bad, that this is the most active topic on 
 the forum


 use a better forum sotware and moderate
 and when topics like this get too active just close the thread
 and archive it

 D have a small community
 these topics really drain the energy of the D community

 If a new forum is not an option (which i think it isnt)
 maybe let the forum run dry (i.e. dont reply, at least not to 
 threads like this one),
 and switch to discord or slack


If there were another venue to have this discussion, then I think 
the forum wouldn't have 90 page long discussions about it. If 
people had some way they felt they could contribute to a future 
they want, most of them would not complain about it. Honestly, I 
feel like maybe it's time to fork dlang and make a more stable 
language so people can have the future they want with 
easy-to-find quality libraries, good documentation and proper 
development tools.

Otherwise, if the community does not want to fragment into the 
feature hunters and the permanent settlement types, we could have 
a constitutional convention of sorts and decide what the problems 
are, what the solutions are and organize into teams to work on 
them. I don't even think it would be that hard to make 80 of the 
90 pages of that thread obsolete.

I raised sheep and when you're on a smaller pasture, it's much 
easier to create an environment where the sheep go where you 
want, do what you want and want to come to you to be sheared, 
etc. It's the same with people. You can say "I'm going to shut 
down all dissent" and that will work, but it will be so much more 
work than giving people the tools to solve their own problems.



 Jun 08 2022