On 20 October 2013 07:06, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 October 2013 21:29, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 2013 7:45 PM, "Andrei Alexandrescu"
>> <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Walter scrambled to implement UDAs in a rush and breaking protocol in
>> > order to win a corporate D user, Remedy Games. It was a major, exceptional
>> > event. Would you have preferred the protocol to have been followed at the
>> > cost of Remedy?
>> >
>> I would have preferred Remedy working with the community, rather than
>> talking behind closed doors to those who concern only them.  And I say this
>> as someone who was part involved before UDAs and the public announcement
>> came into the picture.
> Surely you can appreciate that we weren't ready for it to be made public
> information. We didn't really have much choice. There's always company
> bureaucracy to deal with.

I can partly understand, and I never felt inclined to push them
through the proper channels when I received in personal emails from
staff.  For me, if I use a product/project and like a product/project,
I want to get involved in with the product/project.  But I suppose not
everyone in a games dev company wants to chip in with aiding
development of a library/toolchain when they've got a deadline on a
game to finish first...

>> What I did find interesting, in reflection at dconf, was that Manu
>> countered all arguments (that I could recall) Walter made to keeping the
>> deprecation in place.
> I had no idea about the deprecation of the original syntax. I don't recall
> ever being a party to any discussion on that matter. The community clearly
> voted for @attribute syntax, and as soon as it was done, I switched all our
> code over.
> I wasn't personally precious about which way the syntax went. We just needed
> the feature, and it seems to have been successfully used by many others
> since us too, so I really hope most people agree it was a valuable addition,
> despite materialising fairly abruptly.
> It's also not like I was the first to come up with it either, people had
> been talking about attributes for years, I just gave it a nudge.
> If we were the only people that *ever* used the initial (experimental)
> C#-style [attribute] syntax, then it should be removed and put an end to
> this criticism, since I changed our code over within minutes of the new
> syntax being made available :)
> There's probably no D code anywhere that uses the original C#-style syntax.

That was near enough exactly the answer to the question I recall from
dconf.  :o)

The question being on how true Walter was in saying that whoever was
using the C#-style syntax had a large codebase, and change-over was
not simple for them.  However it is entirely possible that he was
referring to another company other than Remedy.

Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

Reply via email to