Re: Beta D 2.068.1-b2

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 2015-09-01 15:40, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


I'm not 100% sure, but that does seem like a bug.

You should be able to completely mask toString from a base class if you
don't specify override IMO.


Hmm, I'm not sure. This overloads toString.


I'm assuming the minimal case is just toString?


Yes.

--
/Jacob Carlborg

Re: Beta D 2.068.1-b2

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 2015-09-01 15:40, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


I'm not 100% sure, but that does seem like a bug.


I see now that there's a deprecation message when compiling with 
2.067.0. So it looks like it's intended.


--
/Jacob Carlborg

Re: Beta D 2.068.1-b2

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 2015-09-01 15:40, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:


I'm not 100% sure, but that does seem like a bug.

You should be able to completely mask toString from a base class if you
don't specify override IMO.


Perhaps we need an explicit way to tell the compile we want to hide a 
method in the base class. C# uses the "new" keyword for this if I recall 
correctly.


--
/Jacob Carlborg

Re: Beta D 2.068.1-b2

[Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 2015-08-31 08:01, Martin Nowak wrote:
>
>> First beta for the 2.068.1 point release (we skipped -b1 due to a bug).
>>
>
> Here's a piece of code that used to compile in 2.067.0 but not in 2.068.0:
>
> class UniText
> {
> abstract const char[] toString (char[]  dst = null);
> abstract const wchar[] toString16 (wchar[] dst = null);
> abstract const dchar[] toString32 (dchar[] dst = null);
> }
>
> The error message is:
>
> Error: class main.UniText use of object.Object.toString() is hidden by
> UniText; use 'alias toString = Object.toString;' to introduce base class
> overload set
>
> I suspect this is intended?
>
> --
> /Jacob Carlborg
>

Yep, that is intended. You have to explicitly "import" overload sets. It
does seem to me that if there is only one function in the other overload
set the error could be disabled, however it is clearer the way it works in
2.068.
And it will get us used to having to be explicit when adding to overload
sets like in the code above.

Re: Dynamic arrays

[qznc via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 31 August 2015 at 22:03:07 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
In general, I find myself very easily getting mixed up by the 
syntax of the static vs. dynamic arrays. For instance, compare

int[] x = new int[3];
int[3] y = new int[3];
auto z = new int[3];
x and y are obviously dynamic and static arrays, respectively. 
However, my initial guess on z is that is like y, a static 
array on the heap. But that is wrong. It's actually like x. 
Easy to get confused.


In general, "new" means heap allocation.

I wonder about the initialization of y. Maybe it creates a 
temporary dynamic array on the heap and then copies it to the 
static array on the stack?

Re: Beta D 2.068.1-b2

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 2015-08-31 08:01, Martin Nowak wrote:

First beta for the 2.068.1 point release (we skipped -b1 due to a bug).


Here's a piece of code that used to compile in 2.067.0 but not in 2.068.0:

class UniText
{
abstract const char[] toString (char[]  dst = null);
abstract const wchar[] toString16 (wchar[] dst = null);
abstract const dchar[] toString32 (dchar[] dst = null);
}

The error message is:

Error: class main.UniText use of object.Object.toString() is hidden by 
UniText; use 'alias toString = Object.toString;' to introduce base class 
overload set


I suspect this is intended?

--
/Jacob Carlborg

Re: DCD 0.7.0

[BBasile via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 21:36:46 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:

https://github.com/Hackerpilot/DCD/tree/v0.7.0

After an alpha, a beta, and two release candidates DCD 0.7.0 is 
ready.


Thx, awesome release.

LLVM 3.7 released - LDC is ready to use it!

[Kai Nacke via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Hi all!

LLVM 3.7 has been released some minutes ago! See the release 
notes here: http://llvm.org/releases/3.7.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html

Downloads: http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#3.7.0

Also note that LDC is mentioned in the release notes as one of 
the projects who are already supporting LLVM 3.7. Just recompile 
LDC using master/merge-2.067 branch from GitHub.


This is the 7th time that LDC and D are mentioned in the LLVM 
release notes!


Regards,
Kai

DCD 0.7.0

[Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d-announce]

https://github.com/Hackerpilot/DCD/tree/v0.7.0

After an alpha, a beta, and two release candidates DCD 0.7.0 is 
ready.


The D Completion Daemon is an auto-complete program for the D 
programming language.


Highlights:
* A large portion of DCD's symbol resolution engine was removed 
and

  placed into the new dsymbol project.
* Several design bugs with the cache invalidation process were 
fixed.

  (TLA+ was helpful with this)
* Regression testing! DCD now has regression tests. This was long
  overdue... Information on the tests can be found on the testing
  wiki page
* DCD now uses the latest version of std.experimental.allocator.
* Added the ability to ask the client to list the paths that are
  registered with the server.
* Removed all editor plugins from the DCD repository. All editor
  plugins were maintained outside of this repository anyways, so
  this was more-or-less a dead code removal. Links to editor 
plugins

  and IDEs can be found on the wiki
* Support 2.068 syntax. The only thing that really changed is that
  "inline" and "mangle" are now on the list of "pragma" 
autocomplete suggestions.

* Add "__LINE__", "__FILE__", and other built-in symbols to
  autocomplete suggestions.
* Correctly expand the current working directory when starting the
  server with -I options specifying relative paths.
* Fixed many bugs: 
https://github.com/Hackerpilot/DCD/issues?q=milestone%3A0.7.0

Re: v0.2.1 of EMSI's containers library

[Brian Schott via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 13:51:45 UTC, jmh530 wrote:

The link to documentation doesn't seem to have anything on it.


The package name on the left is expandable.

Re: Dynamic arrays

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, August 31, 2015 21:36:17 John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
> On Monday, 31 August 2015 at 21:29:09 UTC, anonymous wrote:
> > On Monday 31 August 2015 23:09, Minas Mina wrote:
> >
> >> I have started a series of tutorials in D.
> >>
> >> This is my latest blog post, which is about dynamic arrays:
> >> http://minas-mina.com/2015/08/31/dynamic-arrays/
> >>
> >> Constructive criticism is welcome.
> >
> > "Dynamic arrays are allocated on the garbage collected heap"
> > "Dynamic arrays can be sliced"
> >
> > These are not wrong, but maybe a little bit misleading.
> >
> > Static arrays and pointers can be sliced, too. And a slice of a
> > static array or pointer is ... dramatic pause ... a dynamic
> > array that doesn't necessarily refer to the GC heap.
>
> I prefer the term "slice" to dynamic array. Because it's an
> unfamiliar term it helps prevent confusion for people who are
> used to what other languages call dynamic arrays.

Per the spec, T[] is a dynamic array no matter what backs it. And slice is a
_heavily_ overloaded term in D - e.g. you slice a range, and you get another
range, not necessarily a dynamic array. If you slice a container, you get a
range, not a container or a dynamic array.

Steven's article uses the wrong terminology (at least as for as the spec
is concerned), which I wish it didn't, since I think that that causes other
kinds of confusion, and it has led folks to use the term slice when the
official term is dynamic array, but his article has gone a long way to
explaining D's dynamic arrays to people, and we're very much better off for
it.

But there is no non-overloaded term to use here, and I think that folks get
overly hung up over the difference between T[] as a struct and the memory
that it refers to. The semantics of the code generally don't care what's
backing the dynamic array. It's a dynamic array regardless of what memory
backs it, and you can do the same operations on it either way. What changes
is the lifetime of the memory that it refers to. Everything else is the
same.

All of the operations which involve allocation or checking for free space
for the dynamic array to grow into work regardless of whether the memory
that it refers to is GC-allocated or not. And since you can't know whether
the memory is going to be reallocating when appending without checking the
capacity, the fact that any memory that isn't GC-allocated is guaranteed to
reallocate when appending doesn't change much. A GC-backed dynamic array
could have end up with reallocated memory just as easily. You have to check
the capacity to know. And the semantics are really the same whether the
memory backing the dynamic array is GC-allocated or not.

So really, what it comes down to is how the lifetime of a dynamic array's
memory is managed, and it's _not_ the dynamic array that's doing the
managing regardless of what memory is backing it. If it was GC-allocated,
then it's the GC, whereas if it were malloced, then your code needs to keep
track of it elsewhere, and if it was sliced from a static array, then you
need to make sure that the dynamic array doesn't outlive the static one. So,
if the dynamic array is referring to non-GC allocated memory, then you need
to be careful in order to make sure that the dynamic array doesn't outlive
the memory that it refers to, but all of the operations are the same either
way.

So, I honestly think that the focus on the GC-allocated buffers that dynamic
arrays usually refer to actually confuses people at least some of the time.
If you want to manage the memory efficiently, then you need to understand
how that works, and you need to understand which operations will talk to the
GC and which _might_ cause allocations so that you can avoid unnecessary
communication with the GC and avoid having code that assumes that two
dynamic arrays refer to the same memory when they don't. But the dynamic
arrays themselves really don't care what backs them, and aside from making
sure that you manage the lifetime of that memory properly when it's not
GC-allocated, the code that uses dynamic arrays really doesn't care what's
backing them.

- Jonathan M Davis

LDC 0.16.0 alpha2 is out!

[Kai Nacke via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Hi everyone,

LDC 0.16.0 alpha2, the LLVM-based D compiler, is available for 
download!
This release is based on the 2.067.1 frontend and standard 
library and supports LLVM 3.1-3.7 (OS X: no support for 3.3).


Don't miss to check if your preferred system is supported by this 
release. There is even an alpha-quality Win64 version available!


As usual, you can find links to the changelog and the binary 
packages over at digitalmars.D.ldc:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/qvxvcpceknfzsizbt...@forum.dlang.org

Regards,
Kai

Re: LLVM 3.7 released - LDC is ready to use it!

[Justin Whear via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 21:45:30 +, Kai Nacke wrote:

> This is the 7th time that LDC and D are mentioned in the LLVM release
> notes!

Fantastic work keeping LDC bleeding edge!

Re: v0.2.1 of EMSI's containers library

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 04:03:48 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:

https://github.com/economicmodeling/containers


Could the test (plot) be extended to show insertion performance 
for different allocators :)

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 05:17:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

We have made the switch from C++ DMD to D DMD!


Is there a rough prediction of when the use of phobos in ddmd 
will start to be accepted?

Re: Dynamic arrays

[Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 09/01/2015 12:43 AM, qznc wrote:

On Monday, 31 August 2015 at 22:03:07 UTC, jmh530 wrote:

In general, I find myself very easily getting mixed up by the syntax
of the static vs. dynamic arrays. For instance, compare
int[] x = new int[3];
int[3] y = new int[3];
auto z = new int[3];
x and y are obviously dynamic and static arrays, respectively.
However, my initial guess on z is that is like y, a static array on
the heap. But that is wrong. It's actually like x. Easy to get confused.


In general, "new" means heap allocation.

I wonder about the initialization of y. Maybe it creates a temporary
dynamic array on the heap and then copies it to the static array on the
stack?


Seems to be so:

import std.stdio;

void main()
{
int[] x = new int[3];
int[3] y = new int[3];
auto z = new int[3];

writeln(x.ptr);
writeln(y.ptr);
writeln(z.ptr);
}

y's elements are on the stack:

7F1375618200
7FFF091A9910
7F1375618220

Ali

Re: v0.2.1 of EMSI's containers library

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 04:03:48 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:

https://github.com/economicmodeling/containers

This containers library is built on top of Andrei's 
std.experimental.allocator. It's currently used by libraries 
internal to EMSI, as well as the open-source DCD project.


Great!

Re: Blog post : OOP composition with mixins

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 24 August 2015 at 11:10:16 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Rough summary of the talk I have given for recent Berlin D 
meetup event:

https://blog.dicebot.lv/posts/2015/08/OOP_composition_with_mixins


I'm having trouble resolving that DNS name.

Re: Blog post : OOP composition with mixins

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 10:18:08 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:

On Monday, 24 August 2015 at 11:10:16 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Rough summary of the talk I have given for recent Berlin D 
meetup event:

https://blog.dicebot.lv/posts/2015/08/OOP_composition_with_mixins


I'm having trouble resolving that DNS name.


Technical server issues, should be back now.

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 2 Sep 2015 5:31 am, "Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce" <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 09:44:17 Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> > On 9/1/15 6:48 AM, "Luís Marques   wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 05:17:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > >> We have made the switch from C++ DMD to D DMD!
> > >
> > > Is there a rough prediction of when the use of phobos in ddmd will
start
> > > to be accepted?
> >
> > I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since phobos is
> > very unstable. We have to be cautious about making dmd breakable easily
> > by a change to phobos.
> >
> > Of course, I think there is a baseline dmd/gdc/ldc that must be used to
> > build dmd, so perhaps as long as you use phobos features that work
> > there, it will be OK.
>
> Plenty of Phobos is stable and hasn't changed in quite a while. We do
> sometimes deprecate stuff still, but there isn't much that gets deprecated
> at this point, and the deprecation cycle is about two years. The common
> problem would be regressions, and the compiler gets those as much or more
> often than Phobos does. But it is true that some stuff in Phobos changes
> occasionally, and that could affect how new a compiler you need to compile
> the current dmd.
>

Don't forget, Phobos library maintainers love to use new features
everywhere.  Tagging many functions with @nogc almost weeks after it was
introduced in master was the last major backwards breaking change you did
that I'm aware of.

Iain.

Re: LLVM 3.7 released - LDC is ready to use it!

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 21:45:32 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

Hi all!

LLVM 3.7 has been released some minutes ago! See the release 
notes here: 
http://llvm.org/releases/3.7.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html

Downloads: http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#3.7.0

Also note that LDC is mentioned in the release notes as one of 
the projects who are already supporting LLVM 3.7. Just 
recompile LDC using master/merge-2.067 branch from GitHub.


This is the 7th time that LDC and D are mentioned in the LLVM 
release notes!


Nice.  Emulated TLS for ELF was added in llvm 3.7, looking 
forward to trying that on Android, which doesn't have native TLS.

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 1 September 2015 at 15:57, Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer via
> Digitalmars-d-announce  wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since phobos is
>> very unstable. We have to be cautious about making dmd breakable easily by
>> a change to phobos.
>> [snip]
>
> -Steve
>>
>
> Surely this is a code coverage issue then?
> Are there any unit tests  in ddmd?
>

>From how I see it, Phobos is constantly adding, silently breaking,
deprecating, and removing.  We need long term backwards compatibility, and
Phobos just doesn't fit in that picture (yet).

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:33:47 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
deprecating, and removing.  We need long term backwards 
compatibility, and Phobos just doesn't fit in that picture 
(yet).


Why do you need long term backwards compatibility?

Re: Blog post : OOP composition with mixins

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 13:44:15 UTC, cym13 wrote:
BTW, a bit HS but in your article about Rust 
(https://blog.dicebot.lv/posts/2015/01/thoughts_about_rust_from_d_programmer) there is a “” lying in the first example.


Thanks, fixed.

Re: Blog post : OOP composition with mixins

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:11:44 UTC, Meta wrote:

On Monday, 24 August 2015 at 11:10:16 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Rough summary of the talk I have given for recent Berlin D 
meetup event:

https://blog.dicebot.lv/posts/2015/08/OOP_composition_with_mixins


Are you planning on submitting this article to Reddit/Hacker 
News?


There is something wrong about submitting own articles into 
aggregators :) Feel free to do so if you want to.

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:52:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:39:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:

Why do you need long term backwards compatibility?


It would be nice for bootstrapping... now that we need dmd to 
build dmd, it'd be really annoying if you need to install 
version X-3 to compile version X-2 to compile X-1 to finally 
compile version X just because of some stdlib instability.


If that is an issue (I am not sure I understand why that scenario 
would arise) can't you pick a version of Phobos and make it part 
of the distribution, or mark some parts of Phobos stable and 
others unstable? I assume such stability issues also are relevant 
for commercial projects, not only DMD.


Seems to me that the most important advantage of moving to D is 
to attract developers that are unfamiliar with C++, so using 
selected parts of Phobos would make it a lot easier and fun for 
them to contribute.


I assume refactoring, high quality documentation and perhaps a 
tutorial too, of course. Seems to me that lowering the "anxiety 
threshold" could be an important move.

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:52:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:39:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
Grøstad wrote:

Why do you need long term backwards compatibility?


It would be nice for bootstrapping... now that we need dmd to 
build dmd, it'd be really annoying if you need to install 
version X-3 to compile version X-2 to compile X-1 to finally 
compile version X just because of some stdlib instability.


Don't forget about differences in FE versions between dmd/ldc/gdc 
- and the fact you want distribute most performant build possible.

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:39:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:

Why do you need long term backwards compatibility?


It would be nice for bootstrapping... now that we need dmd to 
build dmd, it'd be really annoying if you need to install version 
X-3 to compile version X-2 to compile X-1 to finally compile 
version X just because of some stdlib instability.

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 9/1/15 6:48 AM, "Luís Marques   wrote:

On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 05:17:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

We have made the switch from C++ DMD to D DMD!


Is there a rough prediction of when the use of phobos in ddmd will start
to be accepted?


I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since phobos is 
very unstable. We have to be cautious about making dmd breakable easily 
by a change to phobos.


Of course, I think there is a baseline dmd/gdc/ldc that must be used to 
build dmd, so perhaps as long as you use phobos features that work 
there, it will be OK.


-Steve

Re: Blog post : OOP composition with mixins

[cym13 via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 11:36:49 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 10:18:08 UTC, Luís Marques 
wrote:

On Monday, 24 August 2015 at 11:10:16 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Rough summary of the talk I have given for recent Berlin D 
meetup event:

https://blog.dicebot.lv/posts/2015/08/OOP_composition_with_mixins


I'm having trouble resolving that DNS name.


Technical server issues, should be back now.


BTW, a bit HS but in your article about Rust 
(https://blog.dicebot.lv/posts/2015/01/thoughts_about_rust_from_d_programmer) there is a “” lying in the first example.

Re: Blog post : OOP composition with mixins

[Meta via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 24 August 2015 at 11:10:16 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Rough summary of the talk I have given for recent Berlin D 
meetup event:

https://blog.dicebot.lv/posts/2015/08/OOP_composition_with_mixins


Are you planning on submitting this article to Reddit/Hacker News?

Re: v0.2.1 of EMSI's containers library

[jmh530 via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 04:03:48 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:

https://github.com/economicmodeling/containers



The link to documentation doesn't seem to have anything on it.

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d-announce  wrote:

> [snip]
> I'm not a dmd dev, but I'm not sure it will be accepted, since phobos is
> very unstable. We have to be cautious about making dmd breakable easily by
> a change to phobos.
> [snip]

-Steve
>

Surely this is a code coverage issue then?
Are there any unit tests  in ddmd?

Re: Beta D 2.068.1-b2

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 9/1/15 2:34 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

On 2015-08-31 08:01, Martin Nowak wrote:

First beta for the 2.068.1 point release (we skipped -b1 due to a bug).


Here's a piece of code that used to compile in 2.067.0 but not in 2.068.0:

class UniText
{
 abstract const char[] toString (char[]  dst = null);
 abstract const wchar[] toString16 (wchar[] dst = null);
 abstract const dchar[] toString32 (dchar[] dst = null);
}

The error message is:

Error: class main.UniText use of object.Object.toString() is hidden by
UniText; use 'alias toString = Object.toString;' to introduce base class
overload set

I suspect this is intended?



I'm not 100% sure, but that does seem like a bug.

You should be able to completely mask toString from a base class if you 
don't specify override IMO.


I'm assuming the minimal case is just toString?

-Steve

Re: Blog post : OOP composition with mixins

[Meta via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:32:11 UTC, Dicebot wrote:

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 14:11:44 UTC, Meta wrote:

On Monday, 24 August 2015 at 11:10:16 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Rough summary of the talk I have given for recent Berlin D 
meetup event:

https://blog.dicebot.lv/posts/2015/08/OOP_composition_with_mixins


Are you planning on submitting this article to Reddit/Hacker 
News?


There is something wrong about submitting own articles into 
aggregators :) Feel free to do so if you want to.


Sounds good to me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3j8bi2/oop_composition_with_mixins_in_the_d_programming/

Re: D-Day for DMD is today!

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 15:02:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
Seems to me that the most important advantage of moving to D is 
to attract developers that are unfamiliar with C++, so using 
selected parts of Phobos would make it a lot easier and fun for 
them to contribute.


I assume refactoring, high quality documentation and perhaps a 
tutorial too, of course. Seems to me that lowering the "anxiety 
threshold" could be an important move.


Exactly. I was surprised to find out I couldn't use Phobos in 
ddmd. Raw D is still more pleasant than programming in C++, but 
not nearly as much fun as writing normal D code.