On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 10:34:35 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 19:11 +, Laeeth Isharc via
Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
People also continue to think and write as if the D Foundation
has this inexhaustible fund of resources (pecuniary and
people) that it can command to
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 19:11 +, Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
> People also continue to think and write as if the D Foundation
> has this inexhaustible fund of resources (pecuniary and people)
> that it can command to work on whatever Andrei and Walter think
> best.
But on the
On Sun, 2017-12-31 at 17:32 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-
d wrote:
>
[…]
> I'd love to, but I haven't found the specific paper. She seems to
> work on many different things related to software design and
> visual tooling.
I'll email her and get the best start point citation for
On Sunday, 31 December 2017 at 14:51:24 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
The results are based on experimental data. Read the papers
rather than my waffle about them.
I'd love to, but I haven't found the specific paper. She seems to
work on many different things related to software design and
On Sat, 2017-12-30 at 17:53 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-
d wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 11:56:24 UTC, Russel Winder
> wrote:
> > And is the way every programmer learns their non-first
> > language. All newly learned programming languages are merged
> > into a
On Saturday, 30 December 2017 at 21:40:29 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
This is not true. I was at DConf one year (can't remember
which) and I watched the representative of one of D's larger
corporate users do everything but actually get on his knees and
beg Walter to make a breaking change. IIRC
On 12/30/2017 3:47 PM, rjframe wrote:
He does have a point. At work, people often email me directly, or stop me
in the hallway, to report things that belong on the issue tracker. I
consistently tell people that if I don't fix something the same day, it
likely isn't going to happen unless it's on
On 12/30/2017 3:04 PM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
I can hear him already, "Post it on buzzkill or it won't get fixed!"
It's already on bugzilla, and was already fixed.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2017 23:04:21 +, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> I can hear him already, "Post it on buzzkill or it won't get fixed!"
He does have a point. At work, people often email me directly, or stop me
in the hallway, to report things that belong on the issue tracker. I
consistently tell
On Saturday, 30 December 2017 at 23:04:21 UTC, Nicholas Wilson
wrote:
I can hear him already, "Post it on buzzkill or it won't get
fixed!"
Stupid autocorrect. Bugzilla.
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 03:31:19 UTC, ChangLong wrote:
Hi Walter, Can you take a look at this betterC bug:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18099
==
struct D()
{
struct V {
~this() {
}
On 12/27/17 00:10, Pawn wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 09:39:22 UTC, codephantom wrote:
IMHO..What will help the cause, in terms of keeping D as a 'modern'
programming language, is the willingness of its designers and its
community to make and embrace 'breaking changes' ... for
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 11:56:24 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
And is the way every programmer learns their non-first
language. All newly learned programming languages are merged
into a person's "head language" which is based on their first
language but then evolves as new languages,
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 11:56:24 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
And is the way every programmer learns their non-first
language. All newly learned programming languages are merged
into a person's "head language" which is based on their first
language but then evolves as new languages,
On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 01:09 +, codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> Well, you're doing what most people do, when they hear about a
> new programming language - i.e. start comparing it to others
> there is a psychological basis for that phenomena - it's human.
[…]
And is the way
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 13:37:17 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 10:10:03 UTC, Pawn wrote:
It's been expressed that there are now too many codebases such
that introducing "breaking changes" would upset many people
and companies. D is a mature language, not
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 03:31:19 UTC, ChangLong wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 10:08:37 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/27/2017 12:59 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
All could have been prevented by going the C++ route of 0
cost abstraction,
C++ is not 0 cost abstraction, despite
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 10:08:37 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/27/2017 12:59 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
All could have been prevented by going the C++ route of 0 cost
abstraction,
C++ is not 0 cost abstraction, despite the marketing. It's why
C++ compilers have switches to disable
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 02:21:09 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 01:09:34 UTC, codephantom
wrote:
But honestly, the best way to learn about a programming
language, is to start using it.
Sure , **if** you decide it worth to be learned. And honestly,
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 02:28:20 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
This is marketing. Many times in marketing questions are used
to try to pass a certain perspective as a fact to the target
population. You guys here are all pretty smart, so prolly you
all seen it ;-)
Yeah, true.. but
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 02:21:09 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Small snippets. I believe is the best way to start with a new
language. Then you decide if you like it, and if it serves any
purpose for you. Adopting a new language for anything serious
is a big commitment.
This is what I
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 01:21:42 UTC, codephantom wrote:
I am pretty sure Walter put a question mark after the wording,
which makes it a question, not a statement ;-)
This is marketing. Many times in marketing questions are used to
try to pass a certain perspective as a fact to
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 01:09:34 UTC, codephantom wrote:
But honestly, the best way to learn about a programming
language, is to start using it.
Sure , **if** you decide it worth to be learned. And honestly,
almost everybody knows that to get better at a task you must
perform the
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 18:32:43 UTC, Dan Partelly
wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:46:18 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
(*) "Better C" is a specialist use case for Walter and the D
backend.
Also, if betterC is a specialist use case for Walter only, why
does Walter call
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 19:42:50 UTC, Dan Partelly
wrote:
Im not here to save the world , the baby seals , or D (if it
needs saving), or whatever other crusade. Im here because Im
curious about D, curious enough to want to know future
direction and what the bright people around here
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 20:53:46 UTC, Dan Partelly
wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 19:13:15 UTC, John Gabriele
wrote:
Although I don't know D very well yet, it sounds like Russel
hits the nail precisely on the head here. FWICT, folks have
lately used scripting languages
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 19:13:15 UTC, John Gabriele
wrote:
Although I don't know D very well yet, it sounds like Russel
hits the nail precisely on the head here. FWICT, folks have
lately used scripting languages (ex. Python, Perl, Ruby) for
larger and larger programs (and even
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 19:11:14 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
'Competition is for losers', according to Peter Thiel. It's
completely the wrong mindset >to succeed in a free society.
What you're supposed to do is create a monopoly that you >earn
and keep earning every day. Economic
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 18:23:37 UTC, Dan Partelly
wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:46:18 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
It is all about differentiation. Forget competing against C,
C++, and
Rust. D is the C++ inspired language with GC that isn't Go.
So what I hear is: if
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:46:18 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 08:59 +, Dan Partelly via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
I could not agree more with this. It is unfortunate D has
dependencies on a garbage collector in language proper and in
std.
Given the current
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:46:18 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
(*) "Better C" is a specialist use case for Walter and the D
backend.
Also, if betterC is a specialist use case for Walter only, why
does Walter call it "a game changer for D" ?
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:46:18 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
It is all about differentiation. Forget competing against C,
C++, and
Rust. D is the C++ inspired language with GC that isn't Go.
So what I hear is: if D wants a future embrace one personality
only. Given current state
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 18:01:46 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 16:50 +, Paolo Invernizzi via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
That's another things I really don't understand...
The community know of C, obviously. They know of C++ and have
consciously ignored it. They
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 16:50 +, Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> […]
>
> That's another things I really don't understand...
The community know of C, obviously. They know of C++ and have
consciously ignored it. They know of Rust and have embraced it. They
have never heard of D.
--
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 17:46 +, 12345swordy via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> Competing in terms of what exactly?
Having enough people who give a that the programming language is
not simply a side show of history.
--
Russel.
==
Dr Russel Winder
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:46:18 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
Given the current situation, D's best route to traction is to
embrace GC and ignore all complaints other than "give us a
better GC". (*)
I disagree strongly with this. Otherwise D won't have @nogc
attributes, and
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:42:49 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
D wasn't an option here due to lack of knowledge by the
GStreamer crew.
That's another things I really don't understand...
/Paolo
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 14:06 +, Dan Partelly via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> By comparison, D is young, and had the advantage it had no
>
[…]
In the grand scheme of programming languages, D is old-ish. Bit this is
not a problem per se.
--
Russel.
==
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 08:59 +, Dan Partelly via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> I could not agree more with this. It is unfortunate D has
> dependencies on a garbage collector in language proper and in std.
Given the current situation, D's best route to traction is to embrace
GC and ignore all
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 01:39 +, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 19:34:35 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
>
> > Rust is an example of a language that got it right.
>
> Rust got it right for a single, very specialized use case. The
> cost is that the language is
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 14:06:51 UTC, Dan Partelly
wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 09:39:22 UTC, codephantom
wrote:
[...]
Well, C++ had to evolve over a very long period of time, and
maintain compatibility with C. No other programming language
had to deal with technical
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 09:39:22 UTC, codephantom wrote:
I think stating it that way implies some kind of
psychopathology ;-)
It would be better, and more accurate, to state that 'The D
personality has had to evolve over a long period of time'.
Well, C++ had to evolve over a
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 12:46:20 UTC, codephantom wrote:
To that.. I say...tuff ;-)
A breaking change between major version releases, should be
something users can accomodate. If they are not willing to
accomodate that, then fine, they can stay stuck on a working
version that works
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 10:10:03 UTC, Pawn wrote:
It's been expressed that there are now too many codebases such
that introducing "breaking changes" would upset many people and
companies. D is a mature language, not a young one.
Just make it opt in at the module level and have the
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 10:10:03 UTC, Pawn wrote:
It's been expressed that there are now too many codebases such
that introducing "breaking changes" would upset many people and
companies. D is a mature language, not a young one.
To that.. I say...tuff ;-)
A breaking change
On 12/27/2017 12:59 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
All could have been prevented by going the C++ route of 0 cost abstraction,
C++ is not 0 cost abstraction, despite the marketing. It's why C++ compilers
have switches to disable things like EH and RTTI.
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 09:39:22 UTC, codephantom wrote:
IMHO..What will help the cause, in terms of keeping D as a
'modern' programming language, is the willingness of its
designers and its community to make and embrace 'breaking
changes' ... for example, making @safe the default,
On 12/27/2017 12:24 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
So then why not have first class support for them in language instead of having
the programmer go through hoops to use them ?
Because then it is no longer betterC, because it will require the druntime.
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 08:59:10 UTC, Dan Partelly
wrote:
The D personality is mixed:
...
I think stating it that way implies some kind of psychopathology
;-)
It would be better, and more accurate, to state that 'The D
personality has had to evolve over a long period of time'.
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 19:34:35 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
Rust is an example of a language that got it right. It is
inherently memory-safe, can interface with legacy code
requiring essentially no runtime, and still has optional
reference counting, and plans for an optional garbage
rammers homebreaw their
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 23:02:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
own using setjmp/longjmp to use it?
Standard C has always had setjmp/longjmp, so "exceptions" are
part of the language.
So then why not have first class support for them in language
instead of having
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 19:34:35 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
Rust is an example of a language that got it right.
Rust got it right for a single, very specialized use case. The
cost is that the language is of interest to the tiny fraction of
programmers for whom that use case is
On 12/26/2017 12:40 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
This is self evident. However, this was not the point of my post. My point was
to refute your statement that no C programmer would care about exceptions. If
what you say is true, how comes SEH was used so intensively on Windows by C
programmers , and
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 11:18:58 UTC, Joakim wrote:
IOW, it's not a matter of what D got wrong that it needs
betterC but what those old languages got wrong that D must
adapt to, because of all the old C/C++ code out there.
Rust is an example of a language that got it right. It is
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 20:36:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
You can use setjmp/longjmp in betterC. After all, they are just
library functions.
This is self evident. However, this was not the point of my post.
My point was to refute your statement that no C programmer would
care about
On 12/25/2017 1:25 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
1. Exceptions can be done "you do not use it, you do not pay for them". Also,
compiler switches to diable exceptions totally exist in most compilers.
Those switches exist because it is not free.
3. In several extensive C programs I seen, expception
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 09:25:46 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 22:33:38 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Most of Phobos is actually workable with betterC, it's just
that nobody had gone through >>and figured out what is.
Could you "fix" Phobos so it works out of
On Monday, December 25, 2017 11:18:58 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> To clarify Mike's point, the dmd backend was taken from the
> existing dmc C/C++ compiler, which started in the '80s. It
> wasn't written in D because D didn't exist back then! The
> backend could be turned into normal GC'ed
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 10:40:09 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 10:06:31 UTC, Mike Franklin
wrote:
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 10:11:37 UTC, Dan Partelly
wrote:
D as betterC really is a game changer, for anyone who cares
to give it a try.
Yes, it really
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 10:06:31 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 10:11:37 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
D as betterC really is a game changer, for anyone who cares
to give it a try.
Yes, it really is.
The fact that -betterC exists is a glaring admission that D
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 09:25:46 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
2. Expceptions can be implemented in such a way that the
run-time cost, when used ,is minimal.
I did some testing a few years ago with g++ and the ARM Cortex-M
platform. I found that, compared with checking return values,
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 10:11:37 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
D as betterC really is a game changer, for anyone who cares
to give it a try.
Yes, it really is.
The fact that -betterC exists is a glaring admission that D "got
it wrong".
-betterC was an idea that I heard Walter propose a
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 22:33:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Most of Phobos is actually workable with betterC, it's just
that nobody had gone through >>and figured out what is.
Could you "fix" Phobos so it works out of the box regardless with
no GC runtime ? Or at least properly label
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 00:05:07 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 22:33:38 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/24/2017 2:11 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
D is not billed as betterC++ (yet), though Andrei is working
on it (essentially building an interface to C++ STL).
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 22:33:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/24/2017 2:11 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
D is not billed as betterC++ (yet), though Andrei is working on
it (essentially building an interface to C++ STL).
You piqued my interest. Link?
On 12/24/2017 2:11 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
It is a game chager for D, or a least huge step forward but what is the killer
feature against a betterC done through C++ + STL ? Can anyone who really know
both D and C++ godlike say why D as betterC and not C++ as better C? Maybe
Andrei or
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 10:57:28 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
The motivation behind the -betterC flag is *not* to write new
programs in the general case.
Whether you agree or not, that is *exactly* how some programmers
would like to use it. I think that's a good thing, and I hope
lots of
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 10:11:37 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
It is a game chager for D, or a least huge step forward but
what is the killer feature against a betterC done through C++ +
STL ? Can anyone who really know both D and C++ godlike say why
D as betterC and not C++ as better C?
It is a game chager for D, or a least huge step forward but what
is the killer feature against a betterC done through C++ + STL ?
Can anyone who really know both D and C++ godlike say why D as
betterC and not C++ as better C? Maybe Andrei or Walter ?
Learning a new language (as opposed to
69 matches
Mail list logo
