On Wednesday, 3 February 2021 at 18:24:06 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
Is there a short explanation of why this was done and what it
enables?
Personally I'm excited to see this...
Strangely enough there is a long running 'net wide disagreement
on what an assert is or does.
Some regard it as
Motivating Questions:
What is the difference between an "Online Conference" and
watching something on youtube?
If the answer is nothing, don't bother with a conference, just
create a youtube channel.
If the answer is a conference is nothing like watching stuff on
youtube... you better
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 at 23:46:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It's the end of an era. Symantec bought my company, Zortech,
and now is bought in return. The D community, and myself
personally, owe a debt of gratitude to Symantec.
You were lucky...
...in another age of the world they
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 at 08:50:15 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Jens Mueller is speaking after Walter. His slides can be found
here:
Thanks for what you are doing here, I have looked at them all!
Is there a video and/or slides for Walter's keynote anywhere?
On Saturday, 12 January 2019 at 15:51:03 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tcyb1lpEHm0
Now as to the talk, as you could imagine, it touches on another
Somebody on the C++ side has written a reply
On Sunday, 9 September 2018 at 09:01:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Let's face it, the term "assert" has been poisoned by decades
of ambiguity.
There is really no ambiguity... The terminology is widespread
and well understood across the field I think.
Ahh, I so, so wish what you said
On Sunday, 2 September 2018 at 01:55:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/1/2018 5:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
All in all, John is very non-committal about the whole thing.
He probably got tired of arguing about it :-)
Let's face it, the term "assert" has been poisoned by decades
On Monday, 27 August 2018 at 04:00:18 UTC, John Carter wrote:
Rather the assumption must be, a language processor eats
source, it can (re)write source as well.
And before any one mentions halting problems and the
impossibility of a compiler understanding whether a refactoring
is behaviour
On Saturday, 25 August 2018 at 20:52:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
If I fix the bug, I break existing code, and apparently a
substantial amount of existing code. What's your advice on how
to proceed with this?
https://forum.dlang.org/post/ioiglnwckjsdrukpx...@forum.dlang.org
I've been
Or to put it another way
RAII should be
"Taking Ownership of a Resource is Initialization, and
relinquishing ownership is automatic at the object life time end,
but Failure to Acquire a Resource Is Not An Exceptional
Circumstance"
Not as catchy, but far less problematic.
On Friday, 24 August 2018 at 02:33:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
My personal opinion is that constructors that throw are an
execrable programming practice, and I've wanted to ban them.
(Andrei, while sympathetic to the idea, felt that too many
people relied on it.) I
On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 13:17:00 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2018 at 03:57:10 UTC, John Carter wrote:
* Choice. ie. Programmers _want_ to use it, not are
constrained to use it.
* For programming activity, not new projects. ie. The era of
vast tracts of green field
On Saturday, 18 August 2018 at 22:20:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/18/2018 9:59 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
In your mind, what defines the D language's level of success?
It no longer needs me or Andrei.
I think that is a pretty weak measure.
Stroustrup and Matsumoto are still actively
On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 13:15:39 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
But it doesn't scale if you use OS processes, it's too
heavyweight. Of course, it depends on the application. If you
only need 100 concurrent connections, processes might be OK.
I think you may have fallen for Microsoft
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 12:45:40 UTC, crimaniak wrote:
The error should be maximally localized, and the programmer
should be able to respond to any type of errors. The very
nature of the work of WEB applications contributes to this. As
a rule, queries are handled by short-lived tasks
On Monday, 9 July 2018 at 22:50:07 UTC, Mr.Bingo wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 July 2018 at 04:54:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2018 7:53 PM, John Carter wrote:
Step 2 is to (gradually) migrate std:: standard library
precondition violations in particular from exceptions (or
error codes) to
On Saturday, 7 July 2018 at 01:18:21 UTC, wjoe wrote:
But that's not how D works. It throws an Error which can be
caught.
If people are allowed to do something they assume it's
legitimate.
It should be a compile time error to catch an Error, but it
doesn't even emit a warning and it seems
On Tuesday, 3 July 2018 at 04:54:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/2/2018 7:53 PM, John Carter wrote:
In general all pre/post/assert-condition violations) cause a
corrupted state that cannot be recovered from
programmatically, and so they should never be reported to the
calling code as
On Tuesday, 3 July 2018 at 03:27:06 UTC, Ali wrote:
we have to thank Bertrand Meyer and his language Eiffel, for
that
True.
I was referring to the ideas in Walter's proposal
https://forum.dlang.org/thread/lrbpvj$mih$1...@digitalmars.com
https://herbsutter.com/2018/07/02/trip-report-summer-iso-c-standards-meeting-rapperswil/
This looks to me like a huge step forward for C++
* You get to install your own violation handler and ship a
release build with the option of turning on enforcement at run
time.
* You get to express
On Friday, 20 October 2017 at 14:04:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
https://dlang.org/blog/2017/10/20/unit-testing-in-action/
I'm somewhat late to this party but anyway, here is my two
cents on the way Unit testing needs to be tweaked.
One of the values of Unit Testing is Defect
Pascal Cuoq and John Regehr's blog post
https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1520
on Undefined Behavior in 2017 is gaining quite a bit of well
deserved notice...
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6lc9zs/undefined_behavior_in_2017/
On Sunday, 18 June 2017 at 11:59:34 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
As D continues to grow, there will be messages like this posted
more frequently. Imagine that you work at a large company and
are considering adopting D so you decide to check out the forum.
Ruby talk in the early days went through a
On Monday, 5 June 2017 at 14:23:34 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
https://dlang.org/blog/2017/06/05/compile-time-sort-in-d/
Seems like you have inspired people...
http://blog.zdsmith.com/posts/compiletime-sort-in-nim.html
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 13:04:52 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
For example:
int[3] arr;
arr[3] = 5;
Technically this is a programming error, and a bug. But memory
hasn't actually been corrupted. The system properly stopped me
from corrupting memory. But my reward is that even though
On Monday, 8 May 2017 at 20:55:02 UTC, John Carter wrote:
On Saturday, 6 May 2017 at 06:26:29 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Walter: I believe memory safety will kill C.
C/C++ has been granted an extension of life by the likes of
valgrind and purify and *-sanitizer.
Google makes my point for me
On Saturday, 6 May 2017 at 06:26:29 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Walter: I believe memory safety will kill C.
C/C++ has been granted an extension of life by the likes of
valgrind and purify and *-sanitizer.
I think you will find everything that really matters and is
internet facing has been run up
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 10:19:08 UTC, John C wrote:
In fact, I'm surprised there isn't one in Phobos yet.
Different John C here :-)
I'm sadly forced to do a bit of C++ recently and found they don't
have one in the standard library either...
That feels archaic and out of the 1980's
https://eschew.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/summarizing-gc/
Maybe of interest to the GC folks, some discussion of what the
Rust and Go guys are up to as well.
On Thursday, 28 July 2016 at 15:48:58 UTC, Seb wrote:
We call them DIP (D Improvement Proposals) and I think it's a
lot more productive way to discuss improvements than in the
forum.
Eh. I hoped that somewhere in that explosion of discussion on the
topic the problem had been solved and I had
Don't you just hate it when you google a problem and find a post
from yourself asking the same question?
In 2013 I ran into the UTF8 invalid char autodecode UTFException,
and the answer then was "use std.encoding.sanitize" and my
opinion looking at the implementation, was then, as is now...
On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 at 14:06:37 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
http://jackstouffer.com/blog/d_auto_decoding_and_you.html
There are lots of places where invalid Unicode is either
commonplace or legal, e.g. Linux file names, and therefore
auto decoding cannot be used. It turns out in the wild
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 at 21:42:55 UTC, Lass Safin wrote:
And the thing which you've linked to, that (absolutely
horrendous) outreachy thing,
Relax.
If you don't like that example, grab another. Pyladies whatever.
Not the point.
The point is make people know they're welcome and they
It is very clear from the 'net that some communities welcome
woman, and some actively hate them, some ignore them.
I personally would feel reluctant to get involved in anything
where there was a high probability of vitriolic rejection. (Yes,
sadly, some 'net communities have, unfortunately,
On Tuesday, 9 February 2016 at 22:14:25 UTC, cy wrote:
There are already 10 separate parsers for D here:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Lexers_Parsers
A couple of dead links on that page...
* https://code.google.com/archive/p/dil/
*
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 at 17:52:40 UTC, Jakob Jenkov wrote:
I just had a look at Cap'n Proto. From what I can see in the
encoding spec, performance of ION will be comparable.
"If a disease has many treatments, it has no cure".
This is certainly true for serialization protocols.
The
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015 at 00:40:29 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
Someone still needs to review the PR, though.
Thanks! Looks like it's been merged already.
It was a double problem... I failed to read the bit about
advancing the ref and then the old big @@@BUG@@@ comment in the
unit test made
So whilst attempt to convert from a hex string (without the 0x)
to int I bumped into the @@@BUG@@@ the size of China
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/std/conv.d#L2270
Is there a bugzilla issue number tracking this?
Searching for conv and parse in the issue
On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 19:52:48 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
But neither approach is good for correctness.
The approach that would be "Good for Correctness" is "Hey! You're
doing to much work in a constructor, that's a code smell anyway.
And invoking virtual methods in a
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 21:43:17 UTC, ponce wrote:
Additionally, I was said weeks ago on this NG that and signed
overflow in D is not actually Undefined Behaviour.
Interesting.. The reference is fairly terse on exactly what
happens, is it more formally specified anywhere? In which
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 11:03:00 UTC, ponce wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 at 23:06:50 UTC, John Carter wrote:
C/C++ discussion here
http://blog.robertelder.org/signed-or-unsigned-part-2/
D rules here...
http://dlang.org/type.html#integer-promotions
Everything
C/C++ discussion here
http://blog.robertelder.org/signed-or-unsigned-part-2/
D rules here...
http://dlang.org/type.html#integer-promotions
https://twitter.com/yukihiro_matz/status/634386185507311616
Yet another choice D got right out of the box :-)
Even Bjarne is coming around to the Generic all the time view...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcpSLRpOMJM
Pity that concepts looks to be a very painful syntax for
expressing
On Monday, 13 July 2015 at 19:14:47 UTC, Andy Smith wrote:
On Monday, 13 July 2015 at 04:40:12 UTC, John Carter wrote:
On Monday, 13 July 2015 at 04:05:45 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Now that all the videos are out for dconf,
Are there slides or anything for Martin Nowak's Garbage
Collection
On Monday, 13 July 2015 at 04:05:45 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Now that all the videos are out for dconf,
Are there slides or anything for Martin Nowak's Garbage
Collection in D?
http://dconf.org/2015/talks/nowak.html
Or has it been supplanted by Voting for
std.experimental.allocator?
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 04:05:38 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 03:17:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP76
I am against this. It can lead to silent irreversible data
corruption.
Sigh!
99.99% of the time when I'm processing text my
If you email me at john DOT carter AT taitradio DOT com we can take this
conversation out of the D forum as it is going way off topic.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On 9/01/2015 2:53 p.m., John Carter via
On Monday, 10 February 2014 at 22:19:19 UTC, bearophile wrote:
http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/821527e71343
Your paste has expired / no longer there but the subject has
come up again...
http://www.wilfred.me.uk/blog/2014/10/20/the-fastest-bigint-in-the-west/
On Wednesday, 8 October 2014 at 19:44:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:
This is a somewhat famous phrase from a late '80s essay that's
mentioned sometimes, but I hadn't read it till this week.
Keep reading, he is still pretty ambivalent about the whole
concept still...
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 19:47:27 UTC, David Bregman wrote:
Walter has proposed a change to D's assert function as follows
[1]:
The compiler can make use of assert expressions to improve
optimization, even in -release mode.
Hmm. I really really do like that idea.
I suspect it is one of
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 20:05:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
3. Undefined behavior.
Actually I have had an extensive battle within my own workplace
on this subject and I think I have a reasonable insight in to
both points of view.
It comes down to two opposing view of what we use asserts
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 22:19:16 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
But go ahead. This will lead to a fork.
What should fork is the two opposing intentions for assert.
They should have two different names and different consequences.
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 22:18:29 UTC, John Carter
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 22:57:24 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Turning asserts in program+libaries into globally available
axioms is insane.
I guess this is the heart of the difference in the way DbC
programmers program.
I know that program proving is impossibly hard, so my asserts
On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 19:47:27 UTC, David Bregman wrote:
2. Semantic change.
The proposal changes the meaning of assert(), which will result
in breaking existing code. Regardless of philosophizing about
whether or not the code was already broken according to some
definition of assert,
On Monday, 4 August 2014 at 02:18:12 UTC, David Bregman wrote:
His post basically says that his real life experience leads him
to believe that a static analyzer based on using information
from asserts will very likely generate a ton of
warnings/errors, because real life code is imperfect.
On Monday, 4 August 2014 at 02:31:36 UTC, John Carter wrote:
But since an optimization has to be based on additional hard
information, they have, with every new version of gcc, used
that information both for warnings and optimization.
Hmm. Not sure I made that clear.
ie. Yes, it is possible
So LinkedIn invited me to write an article yeah, yeah, I
know, they invite everybody and their brother.
But I figure this could be useful.
I want to be programming in D for my next project.
And that will only happen if corporate ecosystem around me starts
adopting it.
So I plan to
On Monday, 14 July 2014 at 23:43:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Before we start selling D on embedded devices, how sure are we
that D is
ready to take on the task? I.e., how well does it handle
low-memory
devices? ARM architectures? We better have (very good) answers
for
these,
I guess between perl and Ruby and Scheme etc. I got used to
creating hybrid containers
Want a pair of [string, fileList]? Just make an Array with two
items, one a string, one and array of strings. Done.
D barfed... leaving me momentarily stunned... then Oh Yes, type
safety, Tuple's are
On Monday, 23 June 2014 at 21:26:19 UTC, Chris Williams wrote:
More likely what you want are variants:
Hmm. Interesting.
Yes, Variant and VariantArray are much closer to the dynamic
language semantics...
But the interesting thing is Tuple is much closer to What I
Mean when I create these
Ali, of course, is right. The only thing I'd add is for a
Windowsy programmer (unless you have cygwin installed) you
probably want something like cmd.exe instead of bash.
So in Ruby and R and Scheme and... I have happily used map /
collect for years and years.
Lovely thing.
So I did the dumb obvious of
string[] stringList = map!...;
And D barfed, wrong type, some evil voldemort thing again.
So..
auto stringList = map!;
and we're good..
and
Yes!
That is only one of the reasons to have that ability.
Almost more important is automated reasoning about very large codebases.
What are the global properties?
Where are the antipatterns of use and can we fix them?
Can we lint away large classes of defects?
Even Stroustrup believes such
The timezones being so different, I'm not sure livestreaming will help
me... But I do plan to watch any videos of it as soon as they are up.
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Joakim via Digitalmars-d-announce
digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 9 May 2014 at 19:48:20 UTC,
64 matches
Mail list logo
