Re: It's official: Sociomantic Labs has been acquired by dunnhumby Ltd
On 4/4/14, 2:06 AM, Don wrote: On Friday, 4 April 2014 at 02:38:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 4/3/14, 7:04 AM, Don wrote: https://www.sociomantic.com/dunnhumby-acquires-sociomantic/ Congratulations to all involved! How will this impact the use of D at dunnhumby? Andrei This is going to be very big for D. Our technology will be used with their data and analysis (they're not a software company). Fantastic! Good luck, and hopefully you'll switch to D2 soon! :o) Andrei
Re: I'm joining Facebook
On 4/5/14, 3:13 AM, Peter Alexander wrote: Well, I didn't considering this D.announce worthy, but Andrei suggested I post the news. As the title suggests, after over 5 years in the games industry I've decided to shake things up a bit and join Facebook at their London office. Good luck, and ping me when you're around! -- Andrei
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On 4/6/14, 3:31 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: What I mean is the current semantics of enum are as they are for historical reasons, not because they make (more) sense (than other possibilities). You showed a lot of examples that makes sense only because you are used to the current semantics, not because they are the only option or the option that makes the most sense. Is it better to redesign enum semantics now? Probably not, but I'm just saying :) I fully agree. In my opinion, too, the enum design in D is suboptimal. Andrei
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On 4/6/2014 4:26 AM, bearophile wrote: So do you have an example of this risk? Algol is a rather famous one. A counterexample is Go, which has gotten a lot of traction with a simple syntax.
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On 4/6/2014 3:31 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: What I mean is the current semantics of enum are as they are for historical reasons, not because they make (more) sense (than other possibilities). You showed a lot of examples that makes sense only because you are used to the current semantics, not because they are the only option or the option that makes the most sense. I use enums a lot in D. I find they work very satisfactorily. The way they work was deliberately designed, not a historical accident.
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 16:46:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 4/6/14, 3:31 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: What I mean is the current semantics of enum are as they are for historical reasons, not because they make (more) sense (than other possibilities). You showed a lot of examples that makes sense only because you are used to the current semantics, not because they are the only option or the option that makes the most sense. Is it better to redesign enum semantics now? Probably not, but I'm just saying :) I fully agree. In my opinion, too, the enum design in D is suboptimal. Andrei Hey bearophile - I rest my case... -Eric
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 11:26:41 UTC, bearophile wrote: Walter Bright: Having special syntax for everything makes the language unusable. While there are ways to reach excesses in every design direction, and make things unusable, the risk discussed here seems remote to me. Too much syntax diversity for almost the same things leads to a language that is harder to learn, but I think readability has little to do with special syntax, but rather how it is done and how frequently used those constructs are. You can get syntax diversity with simple formal syntax too. Lisp code often shows signs of this. D and C++ show signs of this with overuse of templates. I find template heavy code to be very poor in terms of readability and well designed special syntax would have been much better in terms of usability.
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
Am 06.04.2014 19:54, schrieb Walter Bright: On 4/6/2014 4:26 AM, bearophile wrote: So do you have an example of this risk? Algol is a rather famous one. A counterexample is Go, which has gotten a lot of traction with a simple syntax. It has more to do with Google than with the language's design.
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 17:52:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 4/6/2014 3:31 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: What I mean is the current semantics of enum are as they are for historical reasons, not because they make (more) sense (than other possibilities). You showed a lot of examples that makes sense only because you are used to the current semantics, not because they are the only option or the option that makes the most sense. I use enums a lot in D. I find they work very satisfactorily. The way they work was deliberately designed, not a historical accident. The fact that you are unaware of how it's properly done (hint: Pascal got right with 'set of enum' being distinct from 'enum') makes it a historical accident.
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On 4/6/2014 2:26 PM, Araq wrote: The fact that you are unaware of how it's properly done (hint: Pascal got right with 'set of enum' being distinct from 'enum') makes it a historical accident. I wrote a Pascal compiler before the C one.
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On Sunday, 6 April 2014 at 19:53:43 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: A counterexample is Go, which has gotten a lot of traction with a simple syntax. It has more to do with Google than with the language's design. That, and being perceived as a http-server-language and having standard libraries and a threading model geared towards web servers. In addition Go has managed to improve the C syntax by removing in-most-cases redundant syntax. Which is quite nice for readability, IMO.
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On 4/6/14, 10:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote: On 4/6/2014 3:31 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: What I mean is the current semantics of enum are as they are for historical reasons, not because they make (more) sense (than other possibilities). You showed a lot of examples that makes sense only because you are used to the current semantics, not because they are the only option or the option that makes the most sense. I use enums a lot in D. I find they work very satisfactorily. The way they work was deliberately designed, not a historical accident. Sorry, I think they ought to have been better. -- Andrei
DAuth - Authentication Utility Lib (initial release - v.0.5.1)
I've put up an initial release of DAuth: A simple-yet-flexible salted password hash based authentication utility lib for D. Before you get too excited, know that actual cryptographic algorithms are outside the scope of this lib. Instead, it uses any Phobos-compatible digests and random number generators. The upside: This makes DAuth fully extensible with plug-in cryptographic algorithms. The downside: It's currently limited to what little exists in Phobos right now (or in any Phobos-compatible third-party digests/RNGs I may not know about). Full overview, sample code and (ugly) API reference are at the project's GitHub homepage: https://github.com/Abscissa/DAuth (DUB project name dauth)
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
Walter Bright: Having special syntax for everything makes the language unusable. While there are ways to reach excesses in every design direction, and make things unusable, the risk discussed here seems remote to me. So do you have an example of this risk? Or examples of languages that have fallen in this trap? Perhaps Ada? Bye, bearophile
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
Walter Bright, el 5 de April a las 21:15 me escribiste: On 4/5/2014 6:28 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Walter Bright, el 5 de April a las 11:04 me escribiste: Of course, you can hide all this in a template. Well, you can emulate enums as they are now with structs too, so that doesn't change anything in the argument about why to provide syntax sugar for one and not the other. The argument for syntactic sugar is it must show a very large benefit over using a template. Having special syntax for everything makes the language unusable. What I mean is the current semantics of enum are as they are for historical reasons, not because they make (more) sense (than other possibilities). You showed a lot of examples that makes sense only because you are used to the current semantics, not because they are the only option or the option that makes the most sense. Is it better to redesign enum semantics now? Probably not, but I'm just saying :) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- El techo de mi cuarto lleno de cometas
Re: Interesting rant about Scala's issues
On 4/6/2014 4:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 4/6/14, 10:52 AM, Walter Bright wrote: I use enums a lot in D. I find they work very satisfactorily. The way they work was deliberately designed, not a historical accident. Sorry, I think they ought to have been better. -- Andrei Sorry, yer wrong!
Issues With dblog.aldacron.net
Anyone visiting my D blog (The One With D) or the Derelict forums recently will likely (hopefully!) have seen a malware warning. The problem is coming from the blog, where Google detected some script injection going on. Using cURL, I was able to see where it's happening, but I've been unable to determine how. Twice I've taken the only steps I can (given that I don't own the server) and gotten it cleared from the blacklist only for it to come back again. Now, I've turned to my hosting provider for help. I opened a support request and they agreed to look into it and see if they can find out what's going on. If they are able to resolve the problem, then I will get the site cleared again and all will, hopefully, be back to normal. If not, I'll either look at a new solution for the blog or just drop it entirely. The Derelict forums appear to be clean, but get the blacklist treatment since they fall under the dblog subdomain. Regardless of what happens with the blog, I'm planning to move the forums to another URL. For now, everything is in the hands of my web host. I'll update here when I have more information.
