Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 18:15:22 UTC, Seb wrote: - good nosql interface what's wrong with vibed's mongodb? Probably nothing for those who use it. I only use: https://cloud.google.com/datastore/ https://cloud.google.com/storage/ https://cloud.google.com/sql/ Amazon and Microsoft have similar solutions. Just compile & upload? Isn't that the great part about having just one executable? Yes... if it only was that easy. Anyway, if you succeed in attracting enough web developers then at some point it makes sense for consultants to maintain a cloud API layer. Until then it is really an uphill battle, but you can aim for niches (like game servers, text search engines etc). https://github.com/higgsjs/Higgs? Doesn't look production ready at this point in time? Not a big deal, you can use a different server with V8 on it.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:59:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:43:23 UTC, dewitt wrote: vibes website doesn't use a proxy. Yes, but more people visit dlang.org, and it makes it more official if it is showcased here as a visible part of the website (one way or another). But if D wants to compete in web then there are alot of better areas to improve on like ORMs (I know not everyone likes them but they have their use cases and users), DB support, etc. That will attract more ppl more than some proxy would.. Probably. I don't know. Pretty sure and I hope std.database is coming soon to Phobos (there was quite some buzz at this year's dconf) http://dconf.org/2016/talks/smith.html https://github.com/cruisercoder/dstddb See also Martin Nowak's talk about his idea for ORM in D: http://dconf.org/2016/talks/nowak.html I can only tell what I am looking out for: - good memcache client https://github.com/TiberiuGal/memcached4d ? - good nosql interface what's wrong with vibed's mongodb? - easy deployment in the cloud (in my case Google, but could be any other vendor) Just compile & upload? Isn't that the great part about having just one executable? For better control, I use systemd, but I do agree that there should be more guides & documentation - so go ahead and write them! And optionally: - fast javascript interpreter/JIT (for precompiling pages) https://github.com/higgsjs/Higgs?
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:50:11 UTC, Seb wrote: I agree that a showcase website for vibed (or another D web framework) would be beneficial, but a real showcase has totally different specs: - > 1 million visitors per day - highly dynamic content (high-throughput databases) - solved technological difficulties (e.g. in-memory caching) As a backend developer I don't really care about those, scaling is done by a separate infrastructure and memcache has to be shared (but a good memcache client is necessary, true). I care about: - my own productivity - how easy it is to locate failures on a running instance - interfacing with infrastructure (also logging over network) - spin up time - number of concurrent requests on a single instance / memory usage - full separation between requests - robustness / uptime (and how close to out-of-memory situations are handled) - http2 support - websockets ...
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:43:23 UTC, dewitt wrote: vibes website doesn't use a proxy. Yes, but more people visit dlang.org, and it makes it more official if it is showcased here as a visible part of the website (one way or another). But if D wants to compete in web then there are alot of better areas to improve on like ORMs (I know not everyone likes them but they have their use cases and users), DB support, etc. That will attract more ppl more than some proxy would.. Probably. I don't know. I can only tell what I am looking out for: - good memcache client - good nosql interface - easy deployment in the cloud (in my case Google, but could be any other vendor) And optionally: - fast javascript interpreter/JIT (for precompiling pages) I mean D could also be used to build a database but why when there are already used alternatives.. A database is no point as people won't use it unless it is proven rock solid (wait and see for a decade). Interfacing with infrastructure is more important. Working well without a proxy/frontend is useful, when you start thinking about things like websockets etc.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:43:03 UTC, Seb wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:05:42 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:51:58 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: The forum-index http header report: Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu) People check out stuff like that. Yeah, and that's an industry-standard production deployment. But perhaps we should just change the server line for the people who do look at it. No need to change the deployment, just the apache/nginx config to spit out something different. I can picture the article now: The D programming language maintains its own web framework called vibe.d, but the official website dlang.org doesn't use it. Instead they use the Apache framework written in C. They also decided to modify Apache to make it look like their own vibe.d framework. Apparently tricking people into thinking they use their own code was easier the actually using it. Mike's call for help was about actively _improving_ dlang.org by pointing out - what is (or could be) confusing for newcomers - bad written texts - missing examples - not user-friendly parts of the documentation - missing info - ... Basically everything that could stop someone from having awesome first five minutes with D! Great points to make dlang.org more welcoming. Where it is now is much further ahead then years past. I read your post but I don't think we in any disagreement. I think everyone can agree that it would look better to others if dlang.org used it's own web framework. Whether or not it makes sense to actually implement it is another question. Since I'm not intimately familiar with the internals of dlang.org, or the consequences of switching, I don't assert that either way would be better. I am, however, pointing out that there are going to be poeple trying to share the D language in a negative light, and dlang.org not using vibe is exactly the kind of thing these people will feed off of and possibly use to turn off others from the language.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:34:25 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:17:37 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: bother with a proper setup. There's a reason ALL the other major languages and frameworks use Apache/nginx/IIS on their websites. It's the recommended way to do it. Sure, you can have vibe.d behind nginx, if you want to, but it would be more impressive if you didn't have to. Scripting languages do of course have to. The main point is that it isn't visible at all that vibe.d is involved or how it is being used. So you loose out on a showcase opportunity. How is serving static HTML difficult or even impressive? I agree that a showcase website for vibed (or another D web framework) would be beneficial, but a real showcase has totally different specs: - > 1 million visitors per day - highly dynamic content (high-throughput databases) - solved technological difficulties (e.g. in-memory caching) - ... That being said, we are working on getting a page [1] of organizations using D ready, so that we can link to _real_ showcases ;-) [1] http://dlang.org/orgs-using-d.html
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:34:25 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:17:37 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: bother with a proper setup. There's a reason ALL the other major languages and frameworks use Apache/nginx/IIS on their websites. It's the recommended way to do it. Sure, you can have vibe.d behind nginx, if you want to, but it would be more impressive if you didn't have to. Scripting languages do of course have to. The main point is that it isn't visible at all that vibe.d is involved or how it is being used. So you loose out on a showcase opportunity. What other adopted solutions do is not really relevant as they already _have_ massive amounts of showcases around the web _or_ they are not trying to position themselves in as a web backend langauge. D is not a scripting language, if it wants to compete with Go in the web arena it has to showcase itself where it can. AFAIK golang.org uses their own stuff, Go on AppEngine. There's a difference between an application server and a frontend web server. Well, you should be able to write a proxy in a system level language. If you can showcase that it is easy to get comparable performance then all the better. vibes website doesn't use a proxy. But if D wants to compete in web then there are alot of better areas to improve on like ORMs (I know not everyone likes them but they have their use cases and users), DB support, etc. That will attract more ppl more than some proxy would.. At least as far as people and companies that build applications.. I mean D could also be used to build a database but why when there are already used alternatives..
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:05:42 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:51:58 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: The forum-index http header report: Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu) People check out stuff like that. Yeah, and that's an industry-standard production deployment. But perhaps we should just change the server line for the people who do look at it. No need to change the deployment, just the apache/nginx config to spit out something different. I can picture the article now: The D programming language maintains its own web framework called vibe.d, but the official website dlang.org doesn't use it. Instead they use the Apache framework written in C. They also decided to modify Apache to make it look like their own vibe.d framework. Apparently tricking people into thinking they use their own code was easier the actually using it. Did you even bother reading my response Stop wasting your time by trolling - make a difference! -- I agree - this is bikeshedding. We all rely on existing software for our day to day life. I quickly checked the first hit server for other languages - have a look: rust.org: nginx php.net: nginx julia.org: Apache scala-lang.org: Apache julia-lang.org: Github python.org: nginx www.cplusplus.com: Apache perl.org: Apache developer.mozilla.org: Apache ruby-lang.org: nginx swift.org: Apache ... and the last time I checked all of them use the C implementation of git for their source code ;-) Mike's call for help was about actively _improving_ dlang.org by pointing out - what is (or could be) confusing for newcomers - bad written texts - missing examples - not user-friendly parts of the documentation - missing info - ... Basically everything that could stop someone from having awesome first five minutes with D!
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:25:32 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:41:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: [snip] I like the "are we fast yet" websites that various project put up, displaying improvements over time. You mean like this? http://digger.k3.1azy.net/trend/ Yes, but running DMD with/without GC, compiling itself. Such graphs are very good for showing end-users that you have steady progress (as changes in absolute values are difficult to experience over 12 months)
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:17:37 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: bother with a proper setup. There's a reason ALL the other major languages and frameworks use Apache/nginx/IIS on their websites. It's the recommended way to do it. Sure, you can have vibe.d behind nginx, if you want to, but it would be more impressive if you didn't have to. Scripting languages do of course have to. The main point is that it isn't visible at all that vibe.d is involved or how it is being used. So you loose out on a showcase opportunity. What other adopted solutions do is not really relevant as they already _have_ massive amounts of showcases around the web _or_ they are not trying to position themselves in as a web backend langauge. D is not a scripting language, if it wants to compete with Go in the web arena it has to showcase itself where it can. AFAIK golang.org uses their own stuff, Go on AppEngine. There's a difference between an application server and a frontend web server. Well, you should be able to write a proxy in a system level language. If you can showcase that it is easy to get comparable performance then all the better.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:41:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: [snip] I like the "are we fast yet" websites that various project put up, displaying improvements over time. You mean like this? http://digger.k3.1azy.net/trend/
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:58:42 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: At any rate, we *are* using our own tech in several places. And I think Seb has shown that in practice, it probably isn't that big a deal that the entire website isn't served by a D project. If you want to convince me, as a backend web developer, that you have something worth looking at you have to showcase the result and also provide the source code for it. Ideally I should be able to download the source from github and get something similar running with little effort. If I have to write lots of code for things that are basic, then it isn't interesting to me. Same thing for the compiler. I look at it in order to find out how D can be used in a larger project. If I find that you bypass the runtime in order to perform and revert to manual raw-pointer memory management, then it isn't interesting to me. Same thing with standard library. I look at it to see how real world programming in D (by language experts) turns out. The only reason I am starting to adopt Go for backend is that they showcase that the things I want to do can done with concise source code. Without such real world showcases I would most likely not even consider it.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:05:42 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:51:58 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: The forum-index http header report: Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu) People check out stuff like that. Yeah, and that's an industry-standard production deployment. But perhaps we should just change the server line for the people who do look at it. No need to change the deployment, just the apache/nginx config to spit out something different. I can picture the article now: The D programming language maintains its own web framework called vibe.d, but the official website dlang.org doesn't use it. Instead they use the Apache framework written in C. They also decided to modify Apache to make it look like their own vibe.d framework. Apparently tricking people into thinking they use their own code was easier the actually using it. A lot of languages have a web framework that sits behind a server written in a different language. .NET powers a ton of sites and applications and usually runs on IIS which is written in C++. Also if I were to use vibe then I would prolly run it behind a reverse proxy like nginx. This is actually pretty standard way of deploying apps like say a Django, Flask, etc Nothing wrong with that and that by no means makes Python a useless language for the web. Even Digital Oceans guide for Node and Python apps have you setup nginx as a reverse proxy. Also Plays uguide shows how to setup nginx as a proxy.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:05:42 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: I can picture the article now: I can't. It is an industry-standard deployment with a commonly used configuration option - people change that all the time. PHP, for example, will modify it to output something like this: Server: Apache/2.4.6 (Unix) PHP/5.4.20 when you use it - they append their brand to the existing string. The only articles I have ever seen about this is people saying you should blank it out to make script kiddies have a harder time figuring out just which version you have installed - people SUGGEST that you obscure it! BTW, when I see a live server running a custom httpd, I tend to have a negative reaction: the sysadmin is lazy and didn't bother with a proper setup. There's a reason ALL the other major languages and frameworks use Apache/nginx/IIS on their websites. It's the recommended way to do it. There's a difference between an application server and a frontend web server.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:51:58 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: The forum-index http header report: Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu) People check out stuff like that. Yeah, and that's an industry-standard production deployment. But perhaps we should just change the server line for the people who do look at it. No need to change the deployment, just the apache/nginx config to spit out something different. I can picture the article now: The D programming language maintains its own web framework called vibe.d, but the official website dlang.org doesn't use it. Instead they use the Apache framework written in C. They also decided to modify Apache to make it look like their own vibe.d framework. Apparently tricking people into thinking they use their own code was easier the actually using it.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:58:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: This is very basic marketing 101. engineers doesn't do marketing. engineers solving tasks.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:45:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: What does that have to do with the website? The forum software is written in D and has a reputation for performance. This is simply a matter of it not popping up on anyone's radar and has nothing to do with the GC or performance hits. Jonathan pointed out that people loose confidence when projects don't use their own tech if they have it. If this was just a single datapoint it would be a non-issue, but when it is a tendency, then it is a marketing issue. I was specifically referencing the bit you chopped out in the quote about GC and bad performance. I understood Jonathan's argument just fine (though I disagree with it). I didn't understand yours. At any rate, we *are* using our own tech in several places. And I think Seb has shown that in practice, it probably isn't that big a deal that the entire website isn't served by a D project.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:53:32 UTC, ketmar wrote: go write it! nope? why do you think that D devs should? they have other work to do, it would be *stupid* to not reuse existing tools. If I thought that D was good for the purpose, I would. I have not made such claims. I am pointing out that those who claim that D is suitable for a particular field should be expected to demonstrate it on their own turf. It _does_ not take a lot of effort, if it is as good as is being claimed. If it takes a lot of effort, then why should I bother with it? You need to understand that you are contradicting the claims that are being made about D by not actually being willing to showcase it. This is very basic marketing 101. Not expensive. Belive in something? Showcase it on your own lawn, house, car, website...
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:44:00 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:38:02 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: They do of course use golang for their blog and make it available as a download. As they _should_. google. money. does that rings the bell? No. The go blog software is very small, <400 lines of code. If you use vibe.d for development as it has been said then it makes people wonder even more why it isn't deployed. srsly. Showcase your own stuff, nobody else are likely to do it.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:49:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:44:00 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:38:02 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: They do of course use golang for their blog and make it available as a download. As they _should_. google. money. does that rings the bell? No. The go blog software is very small, <400 lines of code. go write it! nope? why do you think that D devs should? they have other work to do, it would be *stupid* to not reuse existing tools. google. money.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:40:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: DFeed is a NNTP client, not a NNTP server. sure. why should it be an NNTP server? there is task to solve: provide web frontend to the existing NNTP server. that task was solved. there was no task "waste some time to rewrite already working NNTP server software in D in the sake of rewriting".
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:36:50 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:23:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: Yes, no point in writing your own forum software. ah, sure, there was the reason to write DFeed! that's why forum.dlang.org is using engine written in D. DFeed is a NNTP client, not a NNTP server. (NNTP is pretty much dead, so not much point in it, true. Was that your point? Or are you back into zealot-mode? :^)
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:38:02 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: They do of course use golang for their blog and make it available as a download. As they _should_. google. money. does that rings the bell?
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:13:07 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: I've decided to write a web application using vibe and was shocked to see that dlang.org was using apache. Should I be scared that even after this long, the official D website doesn't rely on its own web tools? No, you shouldn't. Like everything else, it's a matter of priorities and resources. Currently, code.dlang.org and tour.dlang.org both run on vibe.d, both of which were put together by community members. The forums here is Vladimir's DFeed, which he developed with his own web tools. There may yet come a time when someone converts dlang.org to a vibe.d web app, but it almost certainly isn't going to be any of the core team members. They have enough on their plate already. Btw for development dlang.org uses vibed since 2.5 years ;-) ``` make -f posix.mak apidocs-serve ``` It will run ddox on every request. Hell, if it's ever been brought up in the forums before now, I don't remember seeing it. While it would be great in terms of dog fooding to see such a project, I personally don't see that it's a big deal if dlang.org runs on Apache. Maybe if you've got some extra time... :) I agree - this is bikeshedding. We all rely on existing software for our day to day life. I quickly checked the first hit server for other languages - have a look: rust.org: nginx php.net: nginx julia.org: Apache scala-lang.org: Apache julia-lang.org: Github python.org: nginx www.cplusplus.com: Apache perl.org: Apache developer.mozilla.org: Apache ruby-lang.org: nginx swift.org: Apache ... and the last time I checked all of them use the C implementation of git for their source code ;-) Mike's call for help was about actively _improving_ dlang.org by pointing out - what is (or could be) confusing for newcomers - bad written texts - missing examples - not user-friendly parts of the documentation - missing info - ... Basically everything that could stop someone from having awesome first five minutes with D!
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:28:54 UTC, dewitt wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:18:27 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software... it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D! Whats worse is the software running the power stations that power the servers that host the website aren't written in D. Neither were the software that run the militaries that protect the interests of the locations where the servers live. Obviously this means that D is useless and should die. Yes, indeed, if golang was not showcased as a web server language then I would not even consider looking at it for the purpose. They do of course use golang for their blog and make it available as a download. As they _should_.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:23:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: Yes, no point in writing your own forum software. ah, sure, there was the reason to write DFeed! that's why forum.dlang.org is using engine written in D.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:18:27 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software... it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D! Whats worse is the software running the power stations that power the servers that host the website aren't written in D. Neither were the software that run the militaries that protect the interests of the locations where the servers live. Obviously this means that D is useless and should die.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:07:26 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:57:42 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: Huh? No, as long as D is not backed by some giant like Google or Apple it has to do its own marketing and showcase its own stuff where it can. the key words are "where it can". rewriting already working tools (perfectly working) in D is "marketing for the marketing sake". if there are money to waste, an engineer can be hired to rewrite such tools. otherwise, it is much wiser to reuse existing ones. Yes, no point in writing your own forum software. However, if you need nginx to perform on a small scale site like dlang.org then you basically say that the D http stack is not yet competitive with C++. Contrast that to: - Vibe.d is so great that we don't need a front end to perform well. so they should pass-by. D is the language to build tools, not some "batteries included" language. this is The Way to market it, i believe. Fair enough, maybe that is more honest, but it doesn't drive the project forward to a situation where it can showcase "download-compile-install" starting points. And that is what most people want. Most people want to solve a specific problem. If you have something they can make work right away and then modify then you are more like to be adopted.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:57:42 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: Huh? No, as long as D is not backed by some giant like Google or Apple it has to do its own marketing and showcase its own stuff where it can. the key words are "where it can". rewriting already working tools (perfectly working) in D is "marketing for the marketing sake". if there are money to waste, an engineer can be hired to rewrite such tools. otherwise, it is much wiser to reuse existing ones. People are not looking for something that takes engineering to work well. They are looking for something that just-works and that they can build on from the get go. so they should pass-by. D is the language to build tools, not some "batteries included" language. this is The Way to market it, i believe.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:52:06 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:40:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:31:34 UTC, ketmar wrote: i'm trying to hint that there is no reason to reimplement *everything* in D. bad engineers reinvent, good engineers reuse! This is about marketing, not engineering. nope, it is about engineering. as long as D is not backed by some giant like google or apple, it is about engineering. Huh? No, as long as D is not backed by some giant like Google or Apple it has to do its own marketing and showcase its own stuff where it can. People are not looking for something that takes engineering to work well. They are looking for something that just-works and that they can build on from the get go.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:40:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:31:34 UTC, ketmar wrote: i'm trying to hint that there is no reason to reimplement *everything* in D. bad engineers reinvent, good engineers reuse! This is about marketing, not engineering. nope, it is about engineering. as long as D is not backed by some giant like google or apple, it is about engineering.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: The forum-index http header report: Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu) People check out stuff like that. Yeah, and that's an industry-standard production deployment. But perhaps we should just change the server line for the people who do look at it. No need to change the deployment, just the apache/nginx config to spit out something different.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:31:34 UTC, ketmar wrote: i'm trying to hint that there is no reason to reimplement *everything* in D. bad engineers reinvent, good engineers reuse! This is about marketing, not engineering. Walter is arguing that vibe.d should be distributed with the compiler. If it is good enough to get semi-official status it makes you wonder why it isn't showcased on dlang.org? Same thing with memory management. If memory management in D is not a problem, why is it then a problem to use the standard memory management in the official D compiler, a non-interactive batch-application? Compare this to: - We are using our own web framework, out-of-the-box, compile-and-run. - We are using our own standard library/runtime, unmodified. And it works great! No need to dig deep to get decent performance!
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:23:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:18:27 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software... it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D! If D had their own OS then that would have been an issue, yes. Just like if Redhat had used Debian on their servers. Oh... you were trying to be funny...? ha... i'm trying to hint that there is no reason to reimplement *everything* in D. bad engineers reinvent, good engineers reuse!
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:18:27 UTC, ketmar wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software... it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D! If D had their own OS then that would have been an issue, yes. Just like if Redhat had used Debian on their servers. Oh... you were trying to be funny...? ha...
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:04:24 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:57:11 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: However, I think you have to consider the emotional impact of this. nodejs.org's homepage is served by nginx. D is general purpose, node is specifically web. Nobody seems to care (probably because using nginx is the recommended way to do a production deployment anyway!) Node.js is widely deployed, they don't need any marketing or showcases. Vibe.d and D does. That is a major difference.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software... it's even more than that: D servers are using OS which is not implemented in D!
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:45:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: What does that have to do with the website? The forum software is written in D and has a reputation for performance. This is simply a matter of it not popping up on anyone's radar and has nothing to do with the GC or performance hits. Jonathan pointed out that people loose confidence when projects don't use their own tech if they have it. If this was just a single datapoint it would be a non-issue, but when it is a tendency, then it is a marketing issue. The forum-index http header report: Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu) People check out stuff like that. The forum backend also use a standard NNTP server, not implemented in D? That's ok too as there is no D forum software... but having many data-points like that is not good if you want to positions yourself as suitable for hosting websites. Just like writing special cased memory management for DMD is not good marketing of D's ability to support fast memory management out of the box. It is better to take a performance hit and show statistics of how you improve over time. People react more negatively to stagnation than absolute numbers. People do notice. One data-point, ok. Many data-points, bad.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:57:11 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: However, I think you have to consider the emotional impact of this. nodejs.org's homepage is served by nginx. D is general purpose, node is specifically web. Nobody seems to care (probably because using nginx is the recommended way to do a production deployment anyway!)
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:43:35 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Really? I just don't see it as that big of a deal. Again, three subdomains are using D right now. So it's not like it's not being used at all. Moving the website to D just hasn't been a priority (nor should it be, IMO). Anyone in the community who *does* feel it's important is certainly free to put together a prototype and pitch it to the core team. I would ask their thoughts about it first, though, before embarking on such a project. I can definitely see and relate to your points. You're using sound arguments when making decisions about software in general. However, I think you have to consider the emotional impact of this. If you walked into a printer company and found out they didn't use their own printers, what would that say to you? Since dlang.org is the face of the D programming language, it's going to be the first thing people use to judge it. IMO that makes it a big deal.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:41:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote: But DMD also doesn't use the GC because it doesn't perform well enough. Stuff like this adds up. So I agree with you in essence, sending the message that there are things to avoid is not good in the long run. It might be better to take a slight performance hit and use your own stuff and post a list of things you are working on to improve it. I like the "are we fast yet" websites that various project put up, displaying improvements over time. What does that have to do with the website? The forum software is written in D and has a reputation for performance. This is simply a matter of it not popping up on anyone's radar and has nothing to do with the GC or performance hits.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:33:50 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve up static content? I didn't say that. Rikki did :) If the official D website doesn't feel like migrating it's own infrastructure to use D, why would anyone else? Of course apache works (so does C++), but choosing not to put in the time to switch says a lot to the rest of the world. Really? I just don't see it as that big of a deal. Again, three subdomains are using D right now. So it's not like it's not being used at all. Moving the website to D just hasn't been a priority (nor should it be, IMO). Anyone in the community who *does* feel it's important is certainly free to put together a prototype and pitch it to the core team. I would ask their thoughts about it first, though, before embarking on such a project.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:33:50 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve up static content? I've heard that same argument as the reason people don't use the D language. Why would I change over to D when C/C++ is working quite happily? If the official D website doesn't feel like migrating it's own infrastructure to use D, why would anyone else? Of course apache works (so does C++), but choosing not to put in the time to switch says a lot to the rest of the world. Well, if this is the only area where it happens then it's ok. But DMD also doesn't use the GC because it doesn't perform well enough. Stuff like this adds up. So I agree with you in essence, sending the message that there are things to avoid is not good in the long run. It might be better to take a slight performance hit and use your own stuff and post a list of things you are working on to improve it. I like the "are we fast yet" websites that various project put up, displaying improvements over time.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On 6/8/16 10:33 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote: On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve up static content? I've heard that same argument as the reason people don't use the D language. Why would I change over to D when C/C++ is working quite happily? If the official D website doesn't feel like migrating it's own infrastructure to use D, why would anyone else? Of course apache works (so does C++), but choosing not to put in the time to switch says a lot to the rest of the world. The concern trolling on this forum has been escalating lately. It's good that people are noticing D more! -Steve
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:30:53 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: These servers tend to be very efficient at front end tasks like load balancing, static file serving and cache management, standards compliance (including automatically up/down grading HTTP versions or TLS requirements), management, security (including handling horribly malformed requests) - stuff that can take megabytes of code to get right and is typically outside the scope of an application server. That's actually the reason I would think dlang.org should use vibe. Those features are critical to the success and viability of vibe. By making dlang.org dependent on vibe, those features are much more likely to be flushed out and maintained at a high standard. BTW ironically, a lot of people complain that D DOES use its own web technology on the website: it is mostly statically generated ddoc! I saw some discussion on that in the forums when I was searching for info on why dlang.org doesn't use vibe. I personally like that dlang uses ddoc, but I don't know too much about the realistic pros and cons. I do like the concept though.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:32:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve up static content? I've heard that same argument as the reason people don't use the D language. Why would I change over to D when C/C++ is working quite happily? If the official D website doesn't feel like migrating it's own infrastructure to use D, why would anyone else? Of course apache works (so does C++), but choosing not to put in the time to switch says a lot to the rest of the world.
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:13:07 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: I've decided to write a web application using vibe and was shocked to see that dlang.org was using apache. It is very common for real world web apps to run behind Apache, nginx, IIS, or another major production server. These servers tend to be very efficient at front end tasks like load balancing, static file serving and cache management, standards compliance (including automatically up/down grading HTTP versions or TLS requirements), management, security (including handling horribly malformed requests) - stuff that can take megabytes of code to get right and is typically outside the scope of an application server. Of course, they can also serve up different parts of a large website to different application servers transparently to the end user - e.g. one part in PHP, another part proxied to vibe. BTW ironically, a lot of people complain that D DOES use its own web technology on the website: it is mostly statically generated ddoc!
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 13:13:07 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote: I've decided to write a web application using vibe and was shocked to see that dlang.org was using apache. Should I be scared that even after this long, the official D website doesn't rely on its own web tools? No, you shouldn't. Like everything else, it's a matter of priorities and resources. Currently, code.dlang.org and tour.dlang.org both run on vibe.d, both of which were put together by community members. The forums here is Vladimir's DFeed, which he developed with his own web tools. There may yet come a time when someone converts dlang.org to a vibe.d web app, but it almost certainly isn't going to be any of the core team members. They have enough on their plate already. Hell, if it's ever been brought up in the forums before now, I don't remember seeing it. While it would be great in terms of dog fooding to see such a project, I personally don't see that it's a big deal if dlang.org runs on Apache. Maybe if you've got some extra time... :)
Re: dlang.org using apache?
On 09/06/2016 1:13 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote: I've decided to write a web application using vibe and was shocked to see that dlang.org was using apache. Should I be scared that even after this long, the official D website doesn't rely on its own web tools? Why would we change over when Apache is working quite happily to serve up static content?
