Re: GCC 10.1 Released
On Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 00:26:31 UTC, Carl Sturtivant wrote: On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 16:57:20 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: [[GCC 11 Development]] Now the development cycle has started again, I have ambitions for a number disruptive changes to land during the next release cycle. Superb! --- gdc is perhaps the most important strategically and I am so glad to see this playing out. In fact I would like to characterize compiler progress for D as follows. dmd --- logistical progress ldc --- tactical progress gdc --- strategic progress :)
Re: GCC 10.1 Released
On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 16:57:20 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: [[GCC 11 Development]] Now the development cycle has started again, I have ambitions for a number disruptive changes to land during the next release cycle. Superb! --- gdc is perhaps the most important strategically and I am so glad to see this playing out.
Re: Pijamas, a simple fluent assertation library (forked from Pyjamas)
.empty and .throw are not that difficult: see https://code.dlang.org/packages/dshould On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 12:35:27 UTC, Luis wrote: On my TODOs list for v0.3 I have : * Rename module to pijamas * Add .empty that it's equivalent to .length(0) * Handle range.should.be.equal([1, 2, 3]) * Test if a .instanceOf could be posible * See if (throwing expression).should.Throw!Exception could be done, and avoid passing a pointer to a function like actually does. In other words, work like assertThorow!Exception(expression) * Try to hide Assertation class (Volvemort class perhaps?) and get out the public methods to avoid Assertation spaming on autogenerated documentation.
Re: Pijamas, a simple fluent assertation library (forked from Pyjamas)
On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 14:42:47 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: compiler usually explodes trying to swallow it https://media.giphy.com/media/tfxgAK370HzEY/giphy.gif
Re: "Programming in D" on Educative.io
On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 08:42:43 UTC, ShadoLight wrote: On Wednesday, 13 May 2020 at 19:25:43 UTC, welkam wrote: On Thursday, 7 May 2020 at 09:18:04 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: Because D is a re-engineering of C++ I thought it was re-engineering of C This opinion seems quite common in the D community, but I frankly don't see it. If you are referring to the D subset defined by the BetterC switch, well, maybe then I would agree. But not for D in general. At first this language was called Mars and it was simple. It was one man`s project. Walter fixed the flaws he saw in C but made sure that porting C to Mars was easy - copied code either compiled or threw an error. Then Andrei came and he put all that metaprogramming, generics, introspection and more on top of the base that Walter built. I dont think you can call D as re engineering of C++ when it was one person project. But historical accuracy is not why I raised that question. I remember there was a post by a C++ programmer that came to this mailing list saying that a year ago he tried D because he was told that its similar to C++ but without all the cruft or something like that. I dont remember exactly. Because D does not behave like C++ that programmer didnt like the language. One year later he tried D again but this time he came to D from the point of it being like C but with its flaws fixed and stuff added to that core. Then he liked the language. The language didnt change but his enjoyment changed when he changed his expectations.
Re: Pijamas, a simple fluent assertation library (forked from Pyjamas)
On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 14:42:47 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 12:35:27 UTC, Luis wrote: On my run to raise stuff from dead packages, I come with Pijamas. A fork from Yamadacpc’s Pyjamas that works with D frontend 2.090 and forwards. [...] I was about to ask what is broken with ctRegex (well except that compiler usually explodes trying to swallow it) [...] Indeed. Was this error : dub test Generating test runner configuration 'pyjamas-test-unittest' for 'unittest' (library). Performing "unittest" build using /usr/bin/dmd for x86_64. pyjamas 0.2.1+commit.20.g765cd5c: building configuration "pyjamas-test-unittest"... tests/pyjamas_spec.d(154,22): Error: template pyjamas.Assertion!string.Assertion.match cannot deduce function from argument types !()(CTRegexWrapper!char), candidates are: source/pyjamas.d(273,10):match(RegEx)(RegEx re, string file = __FILE__, size_t line = __LINE__) with RegEx = CTRegexWrapper!char must satisfy one of the following constraints: is(RegEx == RegexOfT) is(RegEx == StaticRegexOfT) isSomeString!RegEx tests/pyjamas_spec.d(155,45): Error: template pyjamas.Assertion!string.Assertion.match cannot deduce function from argument types !()(CTRegexWrapper!char), candidates are: source/pyjamas.d(273,10):match(RegEx)(RegEx re, string file = __FILE__, size_t line = __LINE__) with RegEx = CTRegexWrapper!char must satisfy one of the following constraints: is(RegEx == RegexOfT) is(RegEx == StaticRegexOfT) isSomeString!RegEx /usr/bin/dmd failed with exit code 1.
Re: Pijamas, a simple fluent assertation library (forked from Pyjamas)
On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 12:35:27 UTC, Luis wrote: On my run to raise stuff from dead packages, I come with Pijamas. A fork from Yamadacpc’s Pyjamas that works with D frontend 2.090 and forwards. [...] I was about to ask what is broken with ctRegex (well except that compiler usually explodes trying to swallow it) [...]
Re: On the D Blog: Lomuto's Comeback
On 5/14/20 9:26 AM, Mike Parker wrote: After reading a paper that grabbed his curiosity and wouldn't let go, Andrei set out to determine if Lomuto partitioning should still be considered inferior to Hoare for quicksort on modern hardware. This blog post details his results. Blog: https://dlang.org/blog/2020/05/14/lomutos-comeback/ Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/gjm6yp/lomutos_comeback_quicksort_partitioning/ HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23179160 Fantastic article! -Steve
Pijamas, a simple fluent assertation library (forked from Pyjamas)
On my run to raise stuff from dead packages, I come with Pijamas. A fork from Yamadacpc’s Pyjamas that works with D frontend 2.090 and forwards. https://zardoz89.github.io/pijamas/ v0.2.2-beta Versions v0.2.x must keep being source compatible with Pyjamas. * Update to DLang frontend 2.090 * Autogeneration of GH Pages with documentation * Rewrite tests to use Silly * Fixed false positives with should.exists . The old approach to see if is convertible to null, wasn't working. * Fixed .match(ctRegex) . Now mimics how std.regex : match handles it * Improved the test battery to detect false positives. * Documenting the source code, so ddoc can generate the documentation. I think that v0.2.2 could be released as not beta version, but I keep confused about why Windows LDC 32 bit version keep failing when tries to build the tests... On my TODOs list for v0.3 I have : * Rename module to pijamas * Add .empty that it's equivalent to .length(0) * Handle range.should.be.equal([1, 2, 3]) * Test if a .instanceOf could be posible * See if (throwing expression).should.Throw!Exception could be done, and avoid passing a pointer to a function like actually does. In other words, work like assertThorow!Exception(expression) * Try to hide Assertation class (Volvemort class perhaps?) and get out the public methods to avoid Assertation spaming on autogenerated documentation.
Re: On the D Blog: Lomuto's Comeback
On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 13:26:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: After reading a paper that grabbed his curiosity and wouldn't let go, Andrei set out to determine if Lomuto partitioning should still be considered inferior to Hoare for quicksort on modern hardware. This blog post details his results. Blog: https://dlang.org/blog/2020/05/14/lomutos-comeback/ Great post, and nice to have another example for how bad branches can really be for performance! One note: The clang/ldc compiler explorer links for lomuto_partition_branchfree are wrong.
Re: On the D Blog: Lomuto's Comeback
On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 10:28:41 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: One curious question -- unless I've misread things horribly, it looks like the D benchmarks for Lomuto branch-free are consistently slower than for C++. Any idea why that is? I would expect gcc/gdc and clang/ldc to produce effectively identical results for code like this. Wrt. the LDC results, LDC v1.17 was shipped with LLVM 8.0.1, while the used clang is v10 based on LLVM 10, so that might account for some slight diffs.
Re: On the D Blog: Lomuto's Comeback
On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 13:26:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: After reading a paper that grabbed his curiosity and wouldn't let go, Andrei set out to determine if Lomuto partitioning should still be considered inferior to Hoare for quicksort on modern hardware. This blog post details his results. Blog: https://dlang.org/blog/2020/05/14/lomutos-comeback/ Nice stuff! One curious question -- unless I've misread things horribly, it looks like the D benchmarks for Lomuto branch-free are consistently slower than for C++. Any idea why that is? I would expect gcc/gdc and clang/ldc to produce effectively identical results for code like this.
Re: On the D Blog: Lomuto's Comeback
On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 13:26:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: After reading a paper that grabbed his curiosity and wouldn't let go, Andrei set out to determine if Lomuto partitioning should still be considered inferior to Hoare for quicksort on modern hardware. This blog post details his results. Fantastic work and great result. Having privately done a very heavy critique of the narrow niche the article had chosen to explore I still recognize and love the results. — Dmitry Olshansky
Re: On the D Blog: Lomuto's Comeback
On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 13:26:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: After reading a paper that grabbed his curiosity and wouldn't let go, Andrei set out to determine if Lomuto partitioning should still be considered inferior to Hoare for quicksort on modern hardware. This blog post details his results. Blog: https://dlang.org/blog/2020/05/14/lomutos-comeback/ Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/gjm6yp/lomutos_comeback_quicksort_partitioning/ HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23179160 Wow, very interesting article. Thanks for sharing.
Re: "Programming in D" on Educative.io
On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 03:22:43 UTC, dangbinghoo wrote: On Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 08:42:43 UTC, ShadoLight wrote: On Wednesday, 13 May 2020 at 19:25:43 UTC, welkam wrote: [...] This opinion seems quite common in the D community, but I frankly don't see it. If you are referring to the D subset defined by the BetterC switch, well, maybe then I would agree. But not for D in general. [...] but D has GC enabled, then it's not re-engineering of C++. To quote you back at yourself: "but D has GC enabled, then it's not re-engineering of C" ... either. D has unique features as well as features taken/inspired from other languages. Anyway, I quoted Walter - he referred to "D was conceived ... as a successor to C and C++..." [1]. Note that he conceived of D as a _successor_ to both C and C++, not just C. The term "re-engineering", IMHO, is a bit misleading - like if some C (or C++) codebase was "re-engineered" to become D. That is not what happened. But maybe this is not what the OP meant. In fact, looking at some synonyms of the term "successor" [2] IMHO gives a better insight into the objectives of D in relation to C/C++ than the idea of a "re-engineered C" (or C++): -replacement -beneficiary -descendant -follower -inheritor -next in line I guess you can argue over what the term "re-engineering" really covers/means, but my original objection was to the idea that D was somehow a "re-engineering" (or even "successor") of only C, and not of C++ as well. It was not one or the other, it was both. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20021205114505/http://digitalmars.com/d/index.html [2] https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/successor
Re: GCC 10.1 Released
On 5/14/2020 9:57 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote: As of last week (7th May), GCC 10.1 has now been released. Thank you, Iain, for your hard and fantastic work!
