Absolutely not inappropriate. I actually prefer it being a
newsgroup user. Many people will instead reference a post on
the forum instead of replying, and then I have to use the forum
interface to see what they are talking about. I'd much rather
have the full discussion in my preferred
To Zachary:
The big temptation for software developers is to *promise*
stability in order to attract the users they need in order to get
the feedback they need in order to create the best possible
design, and then break stability with the new design.
Yes - economists call this time
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 at 03:52:26 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
Excellent post. This situation is very obvious to us at
Sociomantic, as we're at the forefront of a massive disruption
that is happening in the advertising industry. D has far
better prospects in disruptive technology, rather
On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 at 10:07:53 UTC, Don wrote:
Yes, that's true, and so my opinions should be slightly
weighted downwards. But even so, the reality is that bugfixes
cause breakages anyway. Most code that isn't actively being
maintained, is broken already. If you're an early adopter,
Excellent post. This situation is very obvious to us at
Sociomantic, as we're at the forefront of a massive disruption
that is happening in the advertising industry. D has far better
prospects in disruptive technology, rather than trying to
compete with incumbents in the rapidly disappearing
On 2/2/15 3:32 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
Perhaps I should have made clearer in my post, but do you think it is
necessarily inappropriate to extend a conversation that petered out
rather than making a new post. Many observers (Neil Postman - 'amusing
ourselves to death') have pointed to the
On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 23:20:15 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 18:20:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The closer that C++ gets to D, the less interested that many
people will be in adopting it, particularly because of the
large user base and the large amount of
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:49:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Thanks for the good read!
BTW, one effect D has had is that other languages are adopting
D's features, though few will admit it.
Yes - eerily out of the book from the Innovator's Dilemma. But
as Jonathan said (and maybe you
On 2/2/2015 12:20 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:49:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Thanks for the good read!
BTW, one effect D has had is that other languages are adopting D's features,
though few will admit it.
Yes - eerily out of the book from the Innovator's
Wait, is this a reply today to a post made in November 2012?
-- Andrei
Yes, here is what happens:
1. person does a search, finds 2+ year old thread that he likes
to respond to.
2. Entire thread gets pushed to the most recent posts on
forum/newsgroup
3. Others now see the thread (possibly
On 2/1/15 7:51 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/1/15 4:35 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding lots
of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template contraints etc.
Will D
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:49:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Thanks for the good read!
BTW, one effect D has had is that other languages are adopting
D's features, though few will admit it.
But those who know are very grateful to D for that.
OTOH, it would be a pity if D remains just a
On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:35:14 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Fast compile time, bearable syntax, thread safety arc so on...
C++ is building on faulty foundation. I see them talking
example from us as a good news.
I don't see any way writing C++ could become a much better
experience than
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 18:20:23 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
The closer that C++ gets to D, the less interested that many
people will be in adopting it, particularly because of the
large user base and the large amount of code out there that
already uses C++. Programmers have to be
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development
adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if,
template contraints etc.
Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++
Thanks for the good read!
BTW, one effect D has had is that other languages are adopting D's features,
though few will admit it.
On 2/1/15 4:35 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding lots
of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template contraints etc.
Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
I
On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 23:20:15 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
[Table doesn't format well, but you can see it here. The
surrounding text is less relevant].
http://recode.net/2014/01/06/the-four-stages-of-disruption-2/
Heh, funny that that article was written by Sinofsky, who
manifestly
On 11/05/2012 04:54 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 05/11/2012 11:22, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
jdrewsennospam4...@hotmail.com wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
contraints etc.
Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++ Ranges Study Group?
The Future of C++:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
jdrewsen nospam4...@hotmail.com wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
contraints etc.
Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
Yes, even if they
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:22:02 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
jdrewsen nospam4...@hotmail.com wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development
adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if,
template contraints etc.
Will D
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 11:06:39 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:22:02 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
jdrewsen nospam4...@hotmail.com wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development
adding lots of the goodies
differences too, but it is little
conveniences and cleaner syntax, etc., that I don't think C++
will catch up on.
Le 05/11/2012 11:22, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
jdrewsennospam4...@hotmail.com wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
contraints etc.
Will D still have a case when
On 11/05/2012 11:22 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
jdrewsen nospam4...@hotmail.com wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
contraints etc.
Will D still have a case when
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 01:19:04PM +0100, jdrewsen wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 11:39:54 UTC, Erèbe wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:00:29 UTC, jdrewsen wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development
adding lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if,
On Monday, November 05, 2012 11:00:27 jdrewsen wrote:
It seems like the C++ committee is speeding up development adding
lots of the goodies from D like Ranges, static if, template
contraints etc.
Will D still have a case when C++ gets this done?
I wonder if Andrei is part of the C++
Am Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:10:35 +0100
schrieb Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 11:06:39 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:22:02 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:00:27 +0100
jdrewsen nospam4...@hotmail.com wrote:
29 matches
Mail list logo
