Re: Vision for the first semester of 2016
On 29 January 2016 at 22:29, Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Friday, 29 January 2016 at 20:30:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> How much of it actually depends on the compiler though? I'd be a little >> surprised if we couldn't backport at least 80% of phobos to 2.067/2.068 >> with zero changes. >> > > I have no idea, I think you are probably right. But having a compiler and > phobos out of sync sounds even worse than the way it is now. A better > solution for me would be to just stick with a version and wait for gdc to > catch up but honestly it seems like as soon as a new version comes out I > hit some bug that is only fixed in the latest version, forcing me to > upgrade. > > For example this literally happened days ago, I am currently at 2.069 and > the other day I needed to call some winapi stuff, only to realize the > winapi bindings are way outdated, well guess what they are updated in > 2.070. Its amazing how often I hit a problem and then find out its fixed in > the next version. > I know, I've been hitting bug after bug in 2.067, and the answer has always been to backport from 2.068. I already have backported druntime's object.d from 2.068 because 2.067's object module has drifted so far out of sync with it's hidden implementation, I couldn't build anything! So I might as well backport the rest of the druntime library. Nothing much has changed as it was a "bugfix" release. Iain.
Re: Better docs for D (WIP)
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 17:54:41 UTC, Chris Wright wrote: It's not a division. It's a documentation mirror with a different layout. Well, there are a few content changes too. You can see my diff as it develops here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3895 (I'll rebase and squash commits and all that jazz some other time. I'm editing files as I notice problems or opportunities for improvement, so it is kinda random rather than a thematic set of atomic changes.) I'm also working on writing wholly original articles and tutorials to link throughout. Lastly, the site also includes docs for several of my libraries (e.g. http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/simpledisplay.html or http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/arsd.cgi.html, and I plan to open it up to third party projects as well (maybe even automatically scraping code.dlang.org), so everything can be searched in one place. So it is a bit more than just a mirror with a new layout :)
Re: Better docs for D (WIP)
On 12/30/2015 08:32 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: It was rejected. Walter didn't see what the problem was and I was told to just write $(LT)span$(GT)foo$(LT)/span$(GT). Seriously. [...] The idea (and working program) was rejected because the team felt a post-processor was the wrong way to do it. That's been quite possibly THE biggest thorn in my side discouraging me from contributions. I've seen, and personally run into, plenty of cases where a non-existent ideal implementation becomes the mortal enemy of progress that already exists. I could ramble off a whole list of cases. It's sooo much easier to just do my own thing and "get it done" than waste effort on politics and playing the "is this worthwhile?" game with people who prefer wasting their time defending stagnation over stepping back and allowing others to just get problems fixed, even if not in an perfectly ideal way. I'll take a temporarily imperfect solution over vaporware ideals any day.
Re: Better docs for D (WIP)
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 11:14:08 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote: If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd be surprised. http://forum.dlang.org/post/n5sf7o$mu1$2...@digitalmars.com Andrei isn't exactly enthusiastic (though later on, he softens a bit), but I'm convinced we need to change course anyway. Of course, if they did try more harsh measures, I'd fight it, and then we'd see a far more problematic division in the community. but you have absolutely no reason to constantly insult the work on the main site. I see a distinction between insults and technical criticism. A navigation bar that is difficult to navigate is a technical problem - and there's a technical solution. Changing the color of template constraints is like shoving toys under the bed when your mother is about to inspect your room. It might fool her for about two seconds, but she's going to see it anyway and will not be pleased. And more importantly, it doesn't actually clean up the dust, or organize the toys, or discover the dirty laundry that got mixed in to the floor. It is an easy "solution" that you can quickly do without a lot of work, but it isn't actually fixing anything. It is solving the unreadable mess problem by shoving half of it under the rug instead of actually making it readable. (And putting the text "Constraint:" before is silly too. Anyone who knows what that means also knows what if() means in this context, and anybody who doesn't isn't going to learn anything from it.) If dlang.org fixed these problems, I'll set my site to redirect to their site again like it used to do. But, as I've described before, I don't think it will change in that direction without a major, multi-faceted overhaul. I'm doing that overhaul now. And my content changes are available for upstream: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3895 Minor content so far, but lots of cross referencing, fixing missing comments, organizing, etc. though some of it also relies on the generator changes, so it isn't something they can just merge and forget about... _Creating division in such a small community is not helpful_. It might be such a small community because of the weakness in its documentation. I've interviewed a LOT of new and prospective D users over the last several months and every one of them, without exception, expressed difficulty to me in navigating the official site. Several of them just went elsewhere and didn't look back.
Beginning D: Unittesting, IntelliJ, & Dub
Found on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/43m0ld/begining_d_unittesting_intellij_dub/ rharriso, I haven't read the article yet but you have a typo in the title: Begining -> Beginning Ali
Re: Release D 2.070.0
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 00:13:46 UTC, Dicebot wrote: NB: tagged commit has 2.069 in VERSION file resulting in built compiler reporting wrong version. I have added a workaround in packaging script for now but would be nice to fix that in 2.070.1 Btw, dmd.exe 2.070.0 when run says Copyright 1999-2015, even though it's released in 2016.
Re: Beginning D: Unittesting, IntelliJ, & Dub
On 1/31/2016 5:12 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote: Found on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/43m0ld/begining_d_unittesting_intellij_dub/ rharriso, I haven't read the article yet but you have a typo in the title: Begining -> Beginning Ali Another post of the same article: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/43m39l/beginning_d_unit_testing_intellij_dub/
Re: Sublime Text 3 Gets Better D Support
This package might be of some help to those who doesn't want to use dev version: https://packagecontrol.io/packages/D%20Programming%20Language
Re: Release D 2.070.0
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 00:13:46 UTC, Dicebot wrote: NB: tagged commit has 2.069 in VERSION file resulting in built compiler reporting wrong version. I have added a workaround in packaging script for now but would be nice to fix that in 2.070.1 It's already fixed in master, but no one has touched the stable branch yet. I have a PR to that end, though: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/5382 Note it's not just about what version DMD reports it is, but also about what name is given to the phobos shared library files (which use VERSION to generate a unique filename). (On that note: the shared library filenames seem to consistently be of the form `libphobos2.so.0.xx.0` where xx derives from the compiler minor version number. Just wondering where the preceding and trailing 0's come from; shouldn't the filename reflect better both the major and point version numbers?)
Re: New D book available for pre-order: D Web Development
On 2016-01-30 19:09, barberian wrote: I don't know what you're seeing there, but here: Ebook = 25,18 (pounds) Ebook + Physical = 25,99 (pounds) So for what I understand if you by the Physical copy you win the ebook. Ebook = €36.23 Ebook + physical = €35.99 -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Better docs for D (WIP)
On 2016-01-30 21:58, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: If you go into a thing: http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.stdio.write.html "extern (C) nothrow" is repeated a couple of times. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Better docs for D (WIP)
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce < digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > Just want to update y'all that my better docs continue to improve with > each passing week. > > I just did a style facelift on the members section: > > http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.algorithm.setops.html > > (and yes, that's mostly css style! I did a minor change to the html, you > can see the old here: http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.stdio.html > (well, at least until I rebuild the docs of all of Phobos again), but the > css is the big thing. It is nice having semantic markup.) > > > So I hope that is more readable. The sidebar is also new over the last > couple weeks, giving a sorted list of sibling names - including package > listings. > > If you go into a thing: > http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/std.stdio.write.html you can see > how the sidebar shows the immediate siblings only, which makes the list a > lot more managable than trying to cram everything everywhere. I find the > Phobos official sidebar to be useless because there's just too much there. > > BTW the recent push that makes constraints small and grey, check this out > for example: > > http://dlang.org/phobos/std_algorithm_sorting.html#completeSort > > I feel is no help. The readability is still poor and it doesn't help with > navigation. In my new members thing, I used a small, hoverable prototype... > but just on the index. Once you click through, I still have the full > details, formatted for legibility. > > This reform is not appeasing my revolution > > > > Anyway, I feel that this is really starting to come together now... pretty > soon, I'll promote it to "alpha" from its current state of "pre-alpha". > Just gotta write the new search engine first! > If you don't get a cease and desist letter from the D Foundation soon I'd be surprised. Your matter of fact insulting of our official docs (which are leaps and bounds better than the new stuff you are making) is destructive to our community. Having a different kind of search and having a different layout that is more succinct is "Super Awesome" and you are doing it, but you have absolutely no reason to constantly insult the work on the main site. _Creating division in such a small community is not helpful_. Having competing designs can be very helpful, (e.g. your layout could be nice for Google search results), official docs are nice because you don't have to constantly jump around the site while working.
Re: Better docs for D (WIP)
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 07:40:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: One trick is to set the width and clipping on "dt > *" instead of "dt", and use "calc(...)" for dynamic sizes. I considered that too, but since I wanted the dt to float, the width had to be set there.
Re: Better docs for D (WIP)
On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 13:11:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote: "extern (C) nothrow" is repeated a couple of times. Yeah, those shouldn't be there at all on this function. I probably bugged the removal of attributes when moving up a scope or something.
