On 3/21/15 8:54 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:mel52r$252b$1...@digitalmars.com...
I've left a comment recently at
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3087.
So what's the deal with that? Whenever a new tool leaves some trash,
do we chalk
On 3/19/15 6:30 PM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
You may want to answer there, not here. I've also posted a response.
There is this, with an attach:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11810
I destroyed:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3089
Andrei
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 04:53:06 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 02:36:03 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 02:32:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:44:32 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:24:10 UTC, Martin Nowak wro
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 02:36:03 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 02:32:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:44:32 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:24:10 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 23:49:26 UTC, Atila Neves
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 March 2015 at 20:50:51 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
>
>>
>> Go is only a CSP-like, it isn't CSP. cf Python-CSP and PyCSP, not to
>>> mention JCSP and GPars.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not really sure
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 03:43:33 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/21/2015 2:08 PM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
" wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:35:02 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
I know I shouldn't, but I'll bite. Show me the "low level C
code" that
effectively uses SIMD vect
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:mel52r$252b$1...@digitalmars.com...
I've left a comment recently at
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3087.
So what's the deal with that? Whenever a new tool leaves some trash, do we
chalk a circle on the pavement around it?
On 3/21/2015 2:08 PM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
" wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:35:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I know I shouldn't, but I'll bite. Show me the "low level C code" that
effectively uses SIMD vector registers.
You are right, you should not bite. C code is sup
On 03/19/2015 11:47 AM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> This is going to be a lot of fun as soon as tons of currently private
> functions in phobos are public due to the usage of "export".
Why would export make private functions public?
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 02:32:38 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:44:32 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:24:10 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 23:49:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
I actually think that there are two large categorie
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:44:32 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:24:10 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 23:49:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
I actually think that there are two large categories of
programmers: those like writing the same loops over and
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:15:07 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I've left a comment recently at
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3087.
So what's the deal with that? Whenever a new tool leaves some
trash, do we chalk a circle on the pavement around it?
Andrei
Aye,
On Sunday, 22 March 2015 at 01:24:10 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 23:49:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
I actually think that there are two large categories of
programmers: those like writing the same loops over and over
again and those who use algorithms.
I agree, at some
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 23:49:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
I actually think that there are two large categories of
programmers: those like writing the same loops over and over
again and those who use algorithms.
I agree, at some point I learned that there is a huge cultural
distinction bet
I've left a comment recently at
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3087.
So what's the deal with that? Whenever a new tool leaves some trash, do
we chalk a circle on the pavement around it?
Andrei
Right, but it is likely that the nature of programming will ni
change. In the beginning of the web the search engines had
trouble matching anything but exact phrases, now they are
capable of figuring out what you probably wanted.
As you implicitly recognize later, it's not either/or, in the
s
The moment I realised that Go requires you to write loops was the
moment I decided we were done.
I actually think that there are two large categories of
programmers: those like writing the same loops over and over
again and those who use algorithms.
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 22:16:10 UTC, M
This is a funny workaround:
http://bouk.co/blog/idiomatic-generics-in-go/
This blog post describes what to consider when switching from python to go.
http://blog.repustate.com/migrating-code-from-python-to-golang-what-you-need-to-know/#tips
It's very interesting, because the long list of things to give up for
more efficient go code reads like an argumentation against c
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 21:46:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
This is the unpopular opinion, but I'm skeptical if this day
will ever
come. The problem with voice recognition is that it's based on
natural
language, and natural language is inherently ambiguous. You say
that
heuristics can solve t
On 3/21/15 9:59 AM, welkam wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 00:42:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Are you sure you're not missing the part where D's ++var and var++
generate identical code if the result isn't taken? -- Andrei
No I am not missing it. I think I need to explain why I am d
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 07:13:10PM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:47:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >It's about the ability to abstract, that's currently missing from
> >today's ubiquitous GUIs. I would willingly leave my text-based
> >interfaces behind
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:35:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I know I shouldn't, but I'll bite. Show me the "low level C
code" that effectively uses SIMD vector registers.
You are right, you should not bite. C code is superflous, this is
a general issue with efficient parallel computations
On 2015-03-21 at 20:13, Joakim wrote:
"Find me the best deal on a S6"
[...]
Just tried it on google's voice search, it thought I said "Find me the best deal on
a last sex" the first time I tried.
Obviously Google tries to converge the query with what is usually searched for.
OTOH that's one
On 3/21/2015 11:02 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
" wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 17:55:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/20/2015 3:50 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
" wrote:
High level constructs may be cleaner if done right, and sometimes saves
programmer time, b
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 19:20:18 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the
future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing
with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress.
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 15:51:38 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
I don't expect programming will remain so low level in the
future. We are at the infancy of our skills, when comparing
with engineerings with a fee centuries of progress.
For me the future lyes in something like Wolfram/Mathematic
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 14:07:28 UTC, FG wrote:
On 2015-03-21 at 06:30, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +, Joakim via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win,
speech
recognition will replace them both,
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 17:55:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/20/2015 3:50 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
" wrote:
High level constructs may be cleaner if done right, and
sometimes saves
programmer time, but it will never be as fast on the standard
CPU architectures
we have
On 3/20/2015 3:50 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
" wrote:
High level constructs may be cleaner if done right, and sometimes saves
programmer time, but it will never be as fast on the standard CPU architectures
we have today. The hardware favours carefully planned iterative, imperative
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 00:42:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Are you sure you're not missing the part where D's ++var and
var++ generate identical code if the result isn't taken? --
Andrei
No I am not missing it. I think I need to explain why I am doing
all of this.
I am current
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 14:07:28 UTC, FG wrote:
On 2015-03-21 at 06:30, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +, Joakim via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win,
speech
recognition will replace them both,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:10:37PM +, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> >But at another level, it's not even about keyboard vs. rodent... it's
> >about *scriptability*. It's about abstraction. Typing commands at the
> >CLI
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 14:07:28 UTC, FG wrote:
Now imagine the extra trouble if you mix languages. Also, how
do you include meta-text control sequences in a message? By
raising your voice or tilting your head when you say the magic
words? Cf.:
"There was this famous quote QUOTE to be o
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 17:25:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:04:20PM +, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:28:45 +, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Given that I have been an IDE fan since the Amiga days, I
> fully
> agree.
>
> Every time I am on UN
On 3/20/15 9:43 PM, Sebastiaan Koppe wrote:
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 01:31:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/20/15 5:56 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/20/2015 5:23 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yah, and uses reference counting for management. -- Andrei
Ref counting won't improve s
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 22:55:24 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
So one must be careful to avoid being dazzled by shiny
'scientific' approaches when their value remains yet to be
proven.
I sense a recursive problem here...
On 2015-03-21 at 06:30, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 04:17:00AM +, Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
What I was going to say too, neither CLI or GUI will win, speech
recognition will replace them both, by providing the best of both.
Rather than writing a sc
On 2015-03-19 at 09:41, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/18/2015 4:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
#include
#include
typedef long T;
bool find(T *array, size_t dim, T t) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i <= dim; i++);
{
int v = array[i];
if (v == t)
return true;
}
}
Bugs:
1. i should
On 2015-03-21 at 12:34, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
has he actually given his sole rights to use his work them? [...]
ROTFL, we must be telepathically linked. :)
On 2015-03-20 at 16:25, weaselcat wrote:
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 15:12:44 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
Someone who knows about copyright/licensing would probably need to check that
it's okay if we plan to use them verbatim. If we can't then it might be worth
linking to the above page from som
Yah, nitpicks should go there too. We need to have an
understanding that statistically everybody is on SO and nobody
here :o).
I have seen repeatedly - on stack overflow and elsewhere - people
benchmarking 'D' against other languages using dmd. The
messaging on the home page and download pag
On Friday, 20 March 2015 at 20:34:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/20/2015 8:25 AM, weaselcat wrote:
All of the content on rosettacode appears to be licensed under
GNU FDL, I
believe it would just have to be released under the GNU FDL or
a similar
copyleft license that fulfills the GNU FDL.
Well then write that answer.
Not true, right now.
On Saturday, 21 March 2015 at 00:42:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/20/2015 5:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
They're useful to prevent writes to foo.
That's true.
Also as Amaury mentioned they give the
implementer better options going forward. See debacle about
C++'s std::pair's
"firs
On 3/21/2015 1:00 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 03:45:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
1. The sections Params, Returns, and See_Also need to be there. (Unless there
are no parameters, or a void return.)
Any chance of getting a TemplateParams: (or Template_Params
On 3/21/2015 4:07 PM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Mike Parker" wrote in message
news:qebnpybksrpthnewv...@forum.dlang.org...
I know in was decided long ago that {i/c}float/double/real be
deprecated at some point, but it hasn't happened yet and they are
still listed in the table at [1]. So I have two
On Wednesday, 18 March 2015 at 03:45:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
1. The sections Params, Returns, and See_Also need to be there.
(Unless there are no parameters, or a void return.)
Any chance of getting a TemplateParams: (or Template_Params:)
option in the next dmd release, too? Would help v
"Mike Parker" wrote in message news:qebnpybksrpthnewv...@forum.dlang.org...
I know in was decided long ago that {i/c}float/double/real be deprecated
at some point, but it hasn't happened yet and they are still listed in the
table at [1]. So I have two questions:
1) Is this still supposed to
49 matches
Mail list logo
