On Friday, 2 February 2018 at 14:04:09 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 10:03 +, Atila Neves via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
Whether it's .a or .so depends on the dependent package being
`staticLibrary` or `dynamicLibrary`. It's possible for a
package to be both if it has a
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 10:03 +, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> Whether it's .a or .so depends on the dependent package being
> `staticLibrary` or `dynamicLibrary`. It's possible for a package
> to be both if it has a configuration for each.
I think that is one of my points,
On Thursday, 1 February 2018 at 12:19:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 11:55 +, rjframe via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:38:31 +, Russel Winder wrote:
[…]
Are you sure? Every project on my PC places the build files in
$PROJECTDIR/.dub/build; the
On 2018-02-01 13:19, Russel Winder wrote:
I see the source of the dependencies both in ~/.dub/packages and in the
project .dub directory, but I see the compilation products in
~/.dub/packages.
I'm wondering if this might be different versions of Dub behaving
differently. I have 79 packages
On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 11:48:07 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
I am less convinced by this argument. Go, Rust, and especially
Java have shown the power of tribalism and belonging to the one
true tribe eschewing all others. Java is a superb example of
this: the JVM is now a polyglot platform,
On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 11:55 +, rjframe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:38:31 +, Russel Winder wrote:
>
[…]
>
> Are you sure? Every project on my PC places the build files in
> $PROJECTDIR/.dub/build; the source is in ~/.dub/packages.
I see the source of the
On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 17:26 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-
d wrote:
[…]
> Grounded Theory cannot be used for trend analysis though.
[…]
Quite right, good point.
--
Russel.
===
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:34:48 +, Benny wrote:
> https://crates.io/categories
Thanks. I wish that was easier to find though. I still don't see how to
get there without knowing it already exists.
> The issue is that a lot of D's packages are even less maintained then
> Rust, mostly because
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 20:59:16 +, aberba wrote:
> Is the foundation allowed to publicise its financial status as an NGO
> based on US laws?
It's required to file with the IRS, and those filings are public.
The 2016 990-EZ filing:
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 11:55:42 UTC, rjframe wrote:
- I click "Browse All Crates"; the default sort is alphabetical
- not
useful unless I'm just browsing,
Right side:
* Alphabetical
* All-Time Downloads
* Recent Downloads
even then I'd likely want to browse by category.
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 20:56:22 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 08:32:41 UTC, aberba wrote:
[...]
But who's going to pay? I don't think anyone would object to
paying someone to write libraries - it worked well for
languages like Java - but I'm not aware of a pot
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 08:32:41 UTC, aberba wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 00:47:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
The community will have to do this.
They are part of the community. I'm not saying Andrei or Walter
should write an http/https2, json, etc.
lib. They need to actively help
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 19:19:39 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
Every language is based on different principles. The way D
will be adopted is via people who are principals giving it a
try because it solves their problems.
Not sure what you mean by principles, Algol languages (the class
of
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 09:20:37 UTC, aberba wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 18:54:34 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
I do worry that, having been using D for about 3 1/2 years
now, that the perceptions of D outside of this
On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 10:12:04 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 03:22 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad via
Digitalmars-
d wrote:
[…]
I guess some go to Rust after working with Go, but the
transition matrix linked above suggests that the trend has
been that people give up on
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 12:35:21 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
Sure, but I don't think there are enough D github-repositories
to get decent quantitative analysis... Maybe a qualitative
analysis.
Small sample size problem makes me think of Bayesian
analysis...though I suppose there's a bigger
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 09:20:37 UTC, aberba wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 18:54:34 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
Enterprises care about making money with whatever will help
them do that (impress investors). Its developers
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 07:38:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 05:21:14 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
I don't deny that there are limitations to the data. At best,
it would be telling you the transition of github users over a
specific period.
Sure, but I don't
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:20:37 +, aberba wrote:
> That's one big potential mistake. Enterprises care about making money
> with whatever will help them do that (impress investors). Its developers
> who care about languages that help them write code that suites their
> requirements. The focus
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:38:31 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 17:18 +, Mafi via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
> […]
>> What would you say are the most important differences between dub and
>> Cargo? What does Cargo do better than dub (or worse for that matter)?
>> Superficially,
On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 17:18 +, Mafi via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> What would you say are the most important differences between dub
> and Cargo? What does Cargo do better than dub (or worse for that
> matter)? Superficially, they seem to be designed quite similarly.
The single most
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 18:54:34 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
[...]
That's what you would expect, because D is a very ambitious
language, which means its natural user base is much more spread
out and less highly concentrated.
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 18:54:34 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
I do worry that, having been using D for about 3 1/2 years
now, that the perceptions of D outside of this community don't
seem to be changing much. It does seem to make a
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 00:47:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Saturday, 27 January 2018 at 20:15:51 UTC, aberba wrote:
There have been several complaints about tools, and certain
important stuff missing in the standard library (HTTP/HTTP2,
rpc, etc) and no 'official' response or some blog
On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 22:28:35 UTC, Michael wrote:
I would hazard a guess that Go is likely the language they
settle on for whatever task required something more low-level
like Rust/Go(/D? =[ ) and that they move to Python for the
kinds of scripting tasks that follow development of
On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 05:21:14 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
I don't deny that there are limitations to the data. At best,
it would be telling you the transition of github users over a
specific period.
Sure, but I don't think there are enough D github-repositories to
get decent quantitative
On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 03:22:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 23:09:00 UTC, Michael wrote:
by the whole target audience. Rust, on the other hand, seems
to be picking up those who have left Go.
I guess some go to Rust after working with Go, but the
On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 11:48:07 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
[...]
One thing that Go got almost right was the way of using FOSS
packages and libraries. Rust, via Cargo, did a much better job.
Go has a small standard library and allows use of any DVCS,
there is no central contributed
On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 18:54 +, Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
> That's what you would expect, because D is a very ambitious
> language, which means its natural user base is much more spread
> out and less highly concentrated. And beyond that, most code is
> enterprise code
On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 03:22 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-
d wrote:
[…]
> I guess some go to Rust after working with Go, but the transition
> matrix linked above suggests that the trend has been that people
> give up on Rust and try out Go then Python... Of course, with so
> little
On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 04:58:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
It would be interesting to know, but I question how valid the
conclusions are just getting information from github like that.
For instance, I came from C++ to D. However, I never used
github before D's developement moved to
On Monday, January 29, 2018 04:18:12 jmh530 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 03:22:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
>
> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 23:09:00 UTC, Michael wrote:
> >> by the whole target audience. Rust, on the other hand, seems
> >> to be picking up
On Monday, 29 January 2018 at 03:22:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 23:09:00 UTC, Michael wrote:
by the whole target audience. Rust, on the other hand, seems
to be picking up those who have left Go.
I guess some go to Rust after working with Go, but the
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 23:09:00 UTC, Michael wrote:
by the whole target audience. Rust, on the other hand, seems to
be picking up those who have left Go.
I guess some go to Rust after working with Go, but the transition
matrix linked above suggests that the trend has been that people
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 15:36:17 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
Most people at my university, outside of the computer science
department, that are using languages like Python and R and
MATLAB the most, are very aware of Rust and Go, but
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
I find it fascinating that C# is in the "languages to avoid"
section, because from my perspective it's receiving more and
more adoption as the modern alternative to Java, in a way that
Go and Rust are not. Different markets and all of
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
I do worry that, having been using D for about 3 1/2 years now,
that the perceptions of D outside of this community don't seem
to be changing much. It does seem to make a huge difference to
have a big company behind a language, purely
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 09:02:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
While this analysis of language popularity on Github is
enlightening:
http://www.benfrederickson.com/ranking-programming-languages-by-github-users/
I found the
On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 15:36 +, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> I'd say Julia is getting a lot more attention than Rust or Go for
> those users. And rightfully so.
I am still not sure Julia is getting traction outside a few
communities. Python still seems to be the language of
On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 20:31 +, John Gabriele via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> […]
>
> With Rust's extra complexity (over D) of ownership/borrowing,
> lifetimes, and no GC, although we may currently see a push for
> more Rust in Gnome for system-level code, I think D may beat it
> for writing
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
Most people at my university, outside of the computer science
department, that are using languages like Python and R and
MATLAB the most, are very aware of Rust and Go, but not D.
I'd say Julia is getting a lot more attention than
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 13:50:03 UTC, Michael wrote:
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 09:02:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
[...]
I find it fascinating that C# is in the "languages to avoid"
section, because from my perspective it's receiving more and
more adoption as the modern
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 09:02:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
While this analysis of language popularity on Github is
enlightening:
http://www.benfrederickson.com/ranking-programming-languages-by-github-users/
I found the older analysis of how programmers transition (or
adopt new
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 11:44:05 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> The reference interpreter doesn't make much use of static type
> information. I think it makes sense to have separate type checkers until
> this new aspect of Python has reached maturity. That doesn't prevent
> third parties to
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 at 00:31:18 UTC, rjframe wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:59:17 +, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
On Saturday, 27 January 2018 at 13:56:35 UTC, rjframe wrote:
If you use an IDE or analysis/lint tool, you'll get type
checking. The interpreter will happily ignore those
On Saturday, 27 January 2018 at 20:15:51 UTC, aberba wrote:
There have been several complaints about tools, and certain
important stuff missing in the standard library (HTTP/HTTP2,
rpc, etc) and no 'official' response or some blog post from
them about it (whether they even care).
The
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:59:17 +, Ola Fosheim Grostad wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 January 2018 at 13:56:35 UTC, rjframe wrote:
>> If you use an IDE or analysis/lint tool, you'll get type checking. The
>> interpreter will happily ignore those annotations.
>
> You need to use a type checker to get
On Saturday, 27 January 2018 at 13:56:35 UTC, rjframe wrote:
If you use an IDE or analysis/lint tool, you'll get type
checking. The interpreter will happily ignore those annotations.
You need to use a type checker to get type checking... No
surprise there, but without standard type
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 17:24:54 UTC, Benny wrote:
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 09:02:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
While this analysis of language popularity on Github is
enlightening:
http://www.benfrederickson.com/ranking-programming-languages-by-github-users/
What i found
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 00:32:21 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> ... Anyway, with Python 3.6 you get fairly good
> type annotation capabilities which allows static type checking that is
> closing on what you get with statically typed languages. Maybe that is
> a factor too.
If you use an IDE
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 17:24:54 UTC, Benny wrote:
What i found interesting is the comparison between the "newer"
languages and D ( see the reddit thread ).
9 Go 4.1022
15 Kotlin 1.2798
18 Rust0.7317
35 Julia 0.0900
46 Vala0.0665
50 Crystal 0.0498
53 D
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 20:31:30 UTC, John Gabriele wrote:
With Rust's extra complexity (over D) of ownership/borrowing,
lifetimes, and no GC, although we may currently see a push for
more Rust in Gnome for system-level code, I think D may beat it
for writing *applications*.
Adding to
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 20:08:15 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 18:46:12 UTC, John Gabriele wrote:
One niche I could see D establishing some popularity is in
GNU/Linux GTK desktop apps. Especially now that GDC will be
part of GCC.
With GNOME in the process of
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 09:02:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
While this analysis of language popularity on Github is
enlightening:
http://www.benfrederickson.com/ranking-programming-languages-by-github-users/
What i found interesting is the comparison between the "newer"
languages
Very cool stuff, thanks for sharing.
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 17:24:54 UTC, Benny wrote:
What i found interesting is the comparison between the "newer"
languages and D ( see the reddit thread ).
9 Go 4.1022
15 Kotlin 1.2798
18 Rust0.7317
35 Julia 0.0900
46 Vala0.0665
50 Crystal 0.0498
53 D
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 18:46:12 UTC, John Gabriele wrote:
On Friday, 26 January 2018 at 17:24:54 UTC, Benny wrote:
What i found interesting is the comparison between the "newer"
languages and D ( see the reddit thread ).
9 Go 4.1022
15 Kotlin 1.2798
18 Rust0.7317
35
While this analysis of language popularity on Github is
enlightening:
http://www.benfrederickson.com/ranking-programming-languages-by-github-users/
I found the older analysis of how programmers transition (or
adopt new languages) more interesting:
58 matches
Mail list logo
