On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:31:14 -0600 Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the latter case: > > 1. SIMD is not the top of the list. Two weeks ago it wasn't _on_ the > list. Now it's like the last 'copter outta Saigon. > > 2. We haven't identified game designers as a core market, and one > that's more important than e.g. general purpose programmers who need > the like of working qualifiers, multithreading, and shared libraries. > > 3. There was never a promise or even a mention that we'll deliver > SIMD. We virtually promise we deliver threads and expressive > qualifiers, and there's still work to do on that. > > 4. There was broad agreement that the main foci going forward would > be quality, expressive qualifiers, shared libraries, Phobos work, and > publicizing the language. We can't work with and publicize D's > awesome concurrency design if parts of it aren't implemented. > > 5. The SIMD work has _zero_ acceleration on existing code; it only > allows experts to write non-portable code that uses SIMD > instructions. Updating to the next release of dmd has zero > SIMD-related benefit to statistically our entire user base. Very nicely put together. Thank you for that. > Walter and I spend hours on the phone discussing strategies and > tactics to make D more successful. And then comes this binge. Doing > anything on SIMD now is a mistake that I am sorry I was unable to > stop. About the only thing that's good about it all is that it'll be > over soon. It looks as some of the GTD wisdom to choose the rigt NextActions would be beneficial in D community. ;) Sincerely, Gour -- Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment. http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: 52B5C810
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
