Re: Interview at Lang.NEXT
On 16/06/14 16:00, Bruno Medeiros wrote: I sometimes tried to convince dynamic language proponents - the ones that write unittests at least - of the benefits of static typing, by stating that static typing is really just compile time unit-tests! (it is actually) You can actually do compile time unit tests in D, that is not the type system. I.e. unit tests for CTFE functions that runs at compile time. Pretty cool actually :) -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D port of docopt
On 16/06/14 15:31, Bob Tolbert wrote: While that is true, I'd argue that if you are writing an app with a command line that complicated, then you have your work cut out for you no matter what the system is you use. It would be nice to see a simpler example of how to use the library after parsing. Most examples now just do writeln(arguments);. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On 16/06/14 15:43, Bruno Medeiros wrote: What's keeping us from having such a tool? It seems that after one has a decent parser (that also keeps tracks of the source ranges of AST nodes), it's easy to write code that does syntactic modifications and then rewrites the source code. And there's several D parsers out there already - so it should be too much effort to get there. Even I am working on a tool that can be easily retrofitted for this purpose. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the amount of semantic analysis that would typically be required? Can someone give some examples of modifications that would be useful for such a dfix tool? (I haven't yet had the time to watch the full panel video, if that's relevant) * The parser haven't been available for that long (I think) * Can they handle whole language? * Semantic analysis is needed. Otherwise as soon as someone uses templates or mixins the tool won't properly work -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D port of docopt
On 16/06/14 23:11, Dicebot wrote: I don't think it gives any advantage here :) docopt looks cool, though my I'd prefer something that works other way around - automatically generates argument parsing code and help messages from aggregate that represents configuration and/or CLI API (with help of few UDA). Same here. I use the argument parser in Tango [1], which I think works well. I have extended the one in Tango to support generating the help message, and some other stuff as well [2]. [1] http://siegelord.github.io/Tango-D2/tango.text.Arguments.html [2] https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/mambo/tree/master/mambo/arguments -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On 16/06/2014 22:10, Stefan Koch wrote: The thing I have in mind should be really easy for simple tasks as in `if constuctor in any class has parameter of type oldRouter change that parameter to type new Router` but i habe yet to find a good notation for that I guess a DSL for simple manipulations can be ok to have. But for more complex stuff better to just use the language the parser is written in. I'd guess most people would just be using pre-written manipulations anyways. -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: DConf Day 1 Talk 6: Case Studies in Simplifying Code with Compile-Time Reflection by Atila Neves
On Monday, 16 June 2014 at 17:26:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/newest https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/867399893273693 https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/478588866321203200 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/28am0x/case_studies_in_simplifying_code_with_compiletime/ Great talk, missed this on the livestream as I went to sleep. Between Dmitry's regex talk and this one, good to see talks demonstrating how they actually used D to build something interesting and how D-specific features helped them build it better. These talks are much better than the more abstract talks, hopefully we see more of them next year.
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On 17/06/2014 07:25, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 16/06/14 15:43, Bruno Medeiros wrote: What's keeping us from having such a tool? It seems that after one has a decent parser (that also keeps tracks of the source ranges of AST nodes), it's easy to write code that does syntactic modifications and then rewrites the source code. And there's several D parsers out there already - so it should be too much effort to get there. Even I am working on a tool that can be easily retrofitted for this purpose. Or maybe I am misunderstanding the amount of semantic analysis that would typically be required? Can someone give some examples of modifications that would be useful for such a dfix tool? (I haven't yet had the time to watch the full panel video, if that's relevant) * The parser haven't been available for that long (I think) * Can they handle whole language? Dunno about DScanner, but if it's being used in DCD, I'd guess it can handle the whole language, or be fairly close to it. Similarly, there is also DParser2 from MonoD and the DDT parser (for the tool I'm working on) * Semantic analysis is needed. Otherwise as soon as someone uses templates or mixins the tool won't properly work I think there would be a lot of modifications that one can do without semantic analysis (or limited analysis). But that's why I asked for examples of dfix scenarios. Adding final to every method in certain classes could be done without semantic analysis. Reworking certain constructs to different constructs possibly as well (for example change foreach_reverse to just foreach usage) -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On 17/06/2014 16:45, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Dunno about DScanner, but if it's being used in DCD, I'd guess it can handle the whole language, or be fairly close to it. Similarly, there is also DParser2 from MonoD and the DDT parser (for the tool I'm working on) And DDT is fairly complete, AFAIK, and well covered in tests. There might be some syntax I have missed if I misunderstood the grammar, but that should be fixable easily. -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On 17/06/2014 16:45, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Similarly, there is also DParser2 from MonoD and the DDT parser (for the tool I'm working on) And the DDT parser is fairly complete, AFAIK, and well covered in tests. There might be some syntax I have missed if I misunderstood the grammar spec, but that should be fixable easily. -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: DConf Day 1 Talk 6: Case Studies in Simplifying Code with Compile-Time Reflection by Atila Neves
On Monday, 16 June 2014 at 22:14:01 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: The reddit response this year hasn't been particularly impressive it seems to me compared to last year :( r/programming and hn is all about rust and go. on hn many d posts are invisible after some time. i believe mods are taking action there. if we want their attention, we should compare d with others; we should benchmark d and brag about the results etc. other than that, people are not paying attention to D and it's beautiful features. and also the genius idea to post each talk seperately instead of having a nice talks page on dconf.org and providing a link for that. i'd understand the keynotes but for the rest of the talks this is / was not a good idea.
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 15:45:55 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Dunno about DScanner, but if it's being used in DCD, I'd guess it can handle the whole language, or be fairly close to it. Similarly, there is also DParser2 from MonoD and the DDT parser (for the tool I'm working on) HAHAHAHAHAHA ! (The author of these actual tools will tell you the same). * Semantic analysis is needed. Otherwise as soon as someone uses templates or mixins the tool won't properly work I think there would be a lot of modifications that one can do without semantic analysis (or limited analysis). But that's why I asked for examples of dfix scenarios. Until you hit a static if. Which is always. Adding final to every method in certain classes could be done without semantic analysis. Reworking certain constructs to different constructs possibly as well (for example change foreach_reverse to just foreach usage) ditto.
Re: D port of docopt
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 06:29:14 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 16/06/14 15:31, Bob Tolbert wrote: While that is true, I'd argue that if you are writing an app with a command line that complicated, then you have your work cut out for you no matter what the system is you use. It would be nice to see a simpler example of how to use the library after parsing. Most examples now just do writeln(arguments);. So I agree it would be nice to have a more real example. I am open to suggestions or working with someone that needs a CLI update. I thought about a small version of grep or ack written in D, but not sure if that is a waste of time when there might be a more interesting need for something new or different. Bob
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 15:45:55 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Adding final to every method in certain classes could be done without semantic analysis. Reworking certain constructs to different constructs possibly as well (for example change foreach_reverse to just foreach usage) What about methods added via template and string mixins? You cannot add final to a method in a template, because you don't know if it will be mixed in into a class or struct (does the compiler allow final on struct methods?). There's no possible way to handle string mixins, a method can be built up by concatenating strings. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On 17/06/2014 19:10, deadalnix wrote: On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 15:45:55 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Dunno about DScanner, but if it's being used in DCD, I'd guess it can handle the whole language, or be fairly close to it. Similarly, there is also DParser2 from MonoD and the DDT parser (for the tool I'm working on) HAHAHAHAHAHA ! (The author of these actual tools will tell you the same). I don't understand what point is it you're trying to say here... Are you saying it's ludicrous that people have written complete parsers for D? * Semantic analysis is needed. Otherwise as soon as someone uses templates or mixins the tool won't properly work I think there would be a lot of modifications that one can do without semantic analysis (or limited analysis). But that's why I asked for examples of dfix scenarios. Until you hit a static if. Which is always. Adding final to every method in certain classes could be done without semantic analysis. Reworking certain constructs to different constructs possibly as well (for example change foreach_reverse to just foreach usage) ditto. How would a static if prevent a tool from adding final to every method in a specified class? -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On 17/06/2014 20:12, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 15:45:55 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Adding final to every method in certain classes could be done without semantic analysis. Reworking certain constructs to different constructs possibly as well (for example change foreach_reverse to just foreach usage) What about methods added via template and string mixins? You cannot add final to a method in a template, because you don't know if it will be mixed in into a class or struct (does the compiler allow final on struct methods?). There's no possible way to handle string mixins, a method can be built up by concatenating strings. -- /Jacob Carlborg Methods added through string mixins would not work. Actually, any AST modification would probably not work through string mixins. That would be an incredibly difficult problem to solve - in many cases, impossible even. And perhaps rightly so, one could make a case that string mixins should be used sparsely? We have to realize that string mixins are very useful, but are a dirty hack that is a replacement for AST macros. As for methods added via templates, the tool would present the option to add final to those templates as well, or just the class. If doing do might break other classes that use the same template, well, that is a problem that transcends whether this transformation is done manually or by a tool. It would not be an issue with dfix itself then. -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Lang.NEXT panel (dfix)
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 19:48:42 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 17/06/2014 19:10, deadalnix wrote: On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 15:45:55 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Dunno about DScanner, but if it's being used in DCD, I'd guess it can handle the whole language, or be fairly close to it. Similarly, there is also DParser2 from MonoD and the DDT parser (for the tool I'm working on) HAHAHAHAHAHA ! (The author of these actual tools will tell you the same). I don't understand what point is it you're trying to say here... Are you saying it's ludicrous that people have written complete parsers for D? Parsing D is relatively simple but making any reliable changes without full (and mean _full_) semantic analysis is close to impossible because of code generation and interleaving semantic stages.
Re: DConf Day 1 Talk 6: Case Studies in Simplifying Code with Compile-Time Reflection by Atila Neves
On Monday, 16 June 2014 at 17:26:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/newest https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/867399893273693 https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/478588866321203200 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/28am0x/case_studies_in_simplifying_code_with_compiletime/ Andrei This is the most interesting talk I have seen so far from DConf14, very good. -tofu
Re: DConf Day 1 Talk 6: Case Studies in Simplifying Code with Compile-Time Reflection by Atila Neves
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 17:10:16 UTC, Mengu wrote: and also the genius idea to post each talk seperately instead of having a nice talks page on dconf.org and providing a link for that. i'd understand the keynotes but for the rest of the talks this is / was not a good idea. I think the hope was that it would attract more views overall. I think what was not taken into account was the way Reddit post get viewed, having their up votes spread out among the different posts is much worse than pooling them as the reddit posts are far less likely to be viewed with low up vote counts. Also its annoying for us who just want to watch the talks. A much better strategy would have been a full release of all the talks followed with a reddit post of all of them to get the large burst up front, then after wards have individual posts for each video to get the staggering as well. It would effectively doubled each videos exposure(reddit is all reposts any ways so its all the better :P).
Re: DConf Day 1 Talk 6: Case Studies in Simplifying Code with Compile-Time Reflection by Atila Neves
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 17:10:16 UTC, Mengu wrote: On Monday, 16 June 2014 at 22:14:01 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: The reddit response this year hasn't been particularly impressive it seems to me compared to last year :( r/programming and hn is all about rust and go. on hn many d posts are invisible after some time. i believe mods are taking action there. if we want their attention, we should compare d with others; we should benchmark d and brag about the results etc. other than that, people are not paying attention to D and it's beautiful features. I don't know why people bother with those silly sites, which I don't read at all unless they're linked here. None of these benchmarks or other links matter. Nobody paid attention to ruby for a decade, until David Hansson built rails with it. I have seen over and over again that nobody has the ability to reason about an idea or tool like this. You have to build something better with it, something they want, then they'll all flock to use or copy it. You want to show how great D is, build something great with it. Nothing else matters. and also the genius idea to post each talk seperately instead of having a nice talks page on dconf.org and providing a link for that. i'd understand the keynotes but for the rest of the talks this is / was not a good idea. Don't you know that it's better to maintain a steady stream of publicity for D on sites full of people who always dismiss it, rather than making the talks available immediately to the people who actually use D and want to watch them? endSarcasm(); I don't mind it as much, because I'm not bingeing on the talks and spreading out watching them instead, but it'd be nice to see the talks I missed on the livestream and want to watch now, rather than at some indeterminate date in the future.
Re: DConf Day 1 Talk 6: Case Studies in Simplifying Code with Compile-Time Reflection by Atila Neves
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 22:09:06 UTC, Joakim wrote: I don't mind it as much, because I'm not bingeing on the talks and spreading out watching them instead, but it'd be nice to see the talks I missed on the livestream and want to watch now, rather than at some indeterminate date in the future. I just wish they would release the day 3 afternoon talks sooner since I (as well as others) missed them.
Re: DConf Day 1 Talk 6: Case Studies in Simplifying Code with Compile-Time Reflection by Atila Neves
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 at 22:09:06 UTC, Joakim wrote: Don't you know that it's better to maintain a steady stream of publicity for D on sites full of people who always dismiss it, rather than making the talks available immediately to the people who actually use D and want to watch them? Every day until you like it.
core.checkedint added to druntime
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/839 While being a very modest piece of code in and of itself, I believe this offers a significant opportunity that both D compilers and user defined types can exploit. Not only can it be used to create an efficient safeint data type, it can be used to implement multi-precision integer arithmetic types. I'd also like to see it used to replace the various ad-hoc schemes currently in use. It should also be used in dmd itself for things like detecting array size overflows, which is currently done ad-hoc, and detecting overflows in CTFE. For background information and rationale, see http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1139
