Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On 05/29/2014 05:35 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2014 16:07:08 -0700 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: Some of the inconsistencies you mentioned and Brian mentioned in his talk are actually the result of consistencies. I know this is a bit of a difficult thing to wrap one's head around, but having something be mathematically consistent and humanly consistent are often at severe odds. I don't disagree, but I also think that we need to be very careful when they're at odds, because it tends to result in buggy code when the rules are inconsistent from the human's perspective. In some cases, it's best to better educate the programmer, whereas in others, it's better to just make it consistent for the programmer - especially when you're dealing with a case where being consistent with one thing means being inconsistent with another. Overall, I think that we've done a decent job of it, but there are definitely places (e.g. static array declarations) where I think we botched it. - Jonathan M Davis I think this is not a point about "consistency", but about intuition. In any case, simply reversing the order for static array types using an ad-hoc rewrite rule would be a huge wart, even more severe than the other points you raised, and we definitely wouldn't be trading one kind of consistency for another. (In any case, the most elegant solution is to simply not have special syntax for language built-in types.)
Re: DirectX bindings
On Tue, 27 May 2014 02:24:01 -0700, evilrat wrote: On Sunday, 3 November 2013 at 05:27:24 UTC, evilrat wrote: https://github.com/evilrat666/directx-d this is it. i think i can't continue on this one anymore, nor do i have time, nor passion. i've made a lot of work and meet (almost) no interest. i will be stay in contact, so any pull request will not be lost, but i think this is my last commit to it. i have encountered lot of obstacles such as UFCS on classes, which makes impossible seamless migration of user code from C++ to D(no, that wasnt real purpose but for me it is important point). i may return later, let say in a year or two when D will be more complete and usable, but for now i take my leave. please take my apologies if one really used this bindings or have high hopes on it. I think it would appropriate at this point to note that Aurora is currently hosting bindings for DirectX and will continue to maintain DirectX bindings for a the foreseeable future. DirectX 12 bindings will be provided once they become available. So if you need current and maintained bindings for DirectX you can find them on GitHub here: https://github.com/auroragraphics/directx -- Adam Wilson GitHub/IRC: LightBender Project Coordinator The Aurora Project
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Wed, 28 May 2014 16:07:08 -0700 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > Some of the inconsistencies you mentioned and Brian mentioned in his > talk are actually the result of consistencies. > > I know this is a bit of a difficult thing to wrap one's head around, > but having something be mathematically consistent and humanly > consistent are often at severe odds. I don't disagree, but I also think that we need to be very careful when they're at odds, because it tends to result in buggy code when the rules are inconsistent from the human's perspective. In some cases, it's best to better educate the programmer, whereas in others, it's better to just make it consistent for the programmer - especially when you're dealing with a case where being consistent with one thing means being inconsistent with another. Overall, I think that we've done a decent job of it, but there are definitely places (e.g. static array declarations) where I think we botched it. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
Okay. That seriously got munged. Let's try that again... On Tue, 27 May 2014 06:42:41 -1000 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26m8hy/scott_meyers_dconf_2014_keynote_the_last_thing_d/ > > https://news.ycombinator.com/newest (search that page, if not found > click "More" and search again) > > https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/855022447844771 > > https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/471330026168651777 Fortunately, for the most part, I think that we've avoided the types of inconsistencies that Scott describes for C++, but we do definitely have some of our own. The ones that come to mind at the moment are: 1. The order of the dimensions of multi-dimensional static arrays is backwards in comparison to what most everyone expects. int[4][5][6] foo; is the same as int foo[6][5][4]; and has the same dimensions as auto bar = new int[][][](6, 5, 4); The reasons for it stem from the fact that the compiler reads types outward from the variable name (which is very important to understand in C because of its function pointer syntax but not so important in D). However, once we did const(int)* foo; and didn't allow (int)const* foo; I think that we threw that particular bit of consistency with C/C++ out the window, and we really should have just made static array dimensions be read from left-to-right. Unfortunately, I don't think that we can fix that at this point, because doing so would cause silent breakage (or at minimum, would be silent until RangeErrors were thrown at runtime). 2. We're inconsistent with dynamic array dimensions. auto foo = new int[5]; is the same as auto foo = new int[](5); but once you get into multi-dimensional arrays, it's just confusing, because auto foo = new int[4][5][6]; does _not_ declare a multi-dimensional dynamic array but rather a dynamic array of length 6 which contains a multi-dimensonal static array of dimensions 4 and 5. Instead, what you need to do is auto foo = new int[][][](4, 5, 6); IMHO, we should have made it illegal to have dynamic array dimensions inside of the brackets rather than the parens, but I don't know if we can change that. It wouldn't be silent breakage, but it _would_ make it so that a lot of existing code would be broken - especially because so many people put the array dimensions between the brackets for single-dimension dynamic arrays. 3. const, immutable, and inout on the left-hand side of a function declaration are unfortunately legal. This inevitably trips people up, because they think that the attribute applies to the return type, when it applies to the function itself. This is to make the function attributes consistent, because all of the others can go on either side, but the result is that it's essentially bad practice to ever put any attribute on the left-hand side which could apply to the return type, because it looks like a bug. If we just made it illegal for those attributes to go on the left, the problem would be solved, and the result would be far less confusing and bug-prone. I think that we can make that change with minimal breakage (since it's already bad practice to put them no the left-hand side), but AFAIK, Walter is against the idea. 4. There are some cases (such as with static constructors and unittest blocks) that the attributes have to go on the left for some reason. I don't remember the reasons for it, but it's an inconsistency which definitely trips up even seasoned D programmers from time to time. 5. The fact that pure is called pure is very problematic at this point as far as explaining things to folks goes. We should probably consider renaming it to something like @noglobal, but I'm not sure that that would go over very well given the amount of breakage involved. It _does_ require a lot of explaining though. 6. The situation with ranges and string is kind of ugly, with them being treated as ranges of code points. I don't know what the correct solution to this is, since treating them as ranges of code units promotes efficiency but makes code more error-prone, whereas treating them as ranges of graphemes would just cost too much. Ranges of code points is _mostly_ correct but still incorrect and _more_ efficient than graphemes but still quite a bit less efficient than code units. So, it's kind of like it's got the best and worst of both worlds. The current situation causes inconsistencies with everything else (forcing us to use isNarrowString all over the place) and definitely requires frequent explaining, but it does prevent some classes of problems. So, I don't know. I used to be in favor of the current situation, but at this point, if we could change it, I think that I'd argue in faver of just treating them as ranges of code units and then have wrappers for ranges of code points or graphemes. It seems like the current situation promotes either using ubyte[] (if you care about efficiency) or the
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 04:48:11 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote: I did a translation of most of the code in the slides. http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/72b5cfcb72e4 I'm planning to transform it into blog post (or series). Right now it just has some scratch notes. Feel free to let me know everything I got wrong. Hoping someone can confirm or deny this thought. int x2prime = void; // (at global scope) Since x2prime is module variable, I would expect that the compiler will always initialize this to 0 since there isn't really a performance hit. Or is using void guarantee it won't get initialized (so much value in that guarantee)?
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On 5/28/2014 6:06 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
On Thursday, 29 May 2014 at 00:58:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Off the top of my head:
static if (condition)
else :
... declarations ...
All attributes apply to either:
1. the next statement or declaration
2. { ... }
3. : ...
That case is (3), as static if is set up as an attribute.
Static if is not an attribute.
They are handled that way by the parser.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/master/src/parse.c#L379
Looks like there's an omission in the grammar. Thanks for pointing it out.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12818
ConditionalStatement:
Condition NoScopeNonEmptyStatement
Condition NoScopeNonEmptyStatement else NoScopeNonEmptyStatement
Condition:
VersionCondition
DebugCondition
StaticIfCondition
Attribute:
LinkageAttribute
AlignAttribute
DeprecatedAttribute
ProtectionAttribute
Pragma
static
extern
abstract
final
override
synchronized
auto
scope
const
immutable
inout
shared
__gshared
Property
nothrow
pure
ref
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 13:05:53 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote: Whats wrong with "If you think that, you have another thing coming."? I've always understood it sort of like say your Father saying: "If you think that [i.e. you can steal your little brother's ice cream cone], then you have another thing [i.e no ice cream, but maybe the leather strap] coming." I think it depends on the context, "another thing coming" works with threats whereas "another think coming" works with civilized/intellectual disagreement. Due to the popularity of "another thing coming" I probably would avoid using "think coming" lest it be interpreted as hostility.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Thursday, 29 May 2014 at 00:58:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Off the top of my head:
static if (condition)
else :
... declarations ...
All attributes apply to either:
1. the next statement or declaration
2. { ... }
3. : ...
That case is (3), as static if is set up as an attribute.
Static if is not an attribute.
ConditionalStatement:
Condition NoScopeNonEmptyStatement
Condition NoScopeNonEmptyStatement else
NoScopeNonEmptyStatement
Condition:
VersionCondition
DebugCondition
StaticIfCondition
Attribute:
LinkageAttribute
AlignAttribute
DeprecatedAttribute
ProtectionAttribute
Pragma
static
extern
abstract
final
override
synchronized
auto
scope
const
immutable
inout
shared
__gshared
Property
nothrow
pure
ref
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On 2014-05-28 13:05, Craig Dillabaugh via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 21:40:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 5/27/2014 2:22 PM, w0rp wrote: I'm actually a native speaker of 25 years and I didn't get it at first. Natural language communicates ideas approximately. What bugs me is when people say: I could care less. when they mean: I couldn't care less. and: If you think that, you have another thing coming. when they mean: If you think that, you have another think coming. Whats wrong with "If you think that, you have another thing coming."? I've always understood it sort of like say your Father saying: "If you think that [i.e. you can steal your little brother's ice cream cone], then you have another thing [i.e no ice cream, but maybe the leather strap] coming." It's an old saying, and in more modern English might be phrased "If you think that, you have another thought coming", i.e. you'll soon enough see why you're wrong. -- Simen
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On 5/28/2014 5:35 PM, Brian Rogoff wrote:
Could you elaborate? Using some of the examples Brian gave, which ones do you
think are are mathematically consistent/human inconsistent and which the
inverse?
Off the top of my head:
static if (condition)
else :
... declarations ...
All attributes apply to either:
1. the next statement or declaration
2. { ... }
3. : ...
That case is (3), as static if is set up as an attribute.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 23:07:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Some of the inconsistencies you mentioned and Brian mentioned in his talk are actually the result of consistencies. I know this is a bit of a difficult thing to wrap one's head around, but having something be mathematically consistent and humanly consistent are often at severe odds. Could you elaborate? Using some of the examples Brian gave, which ones do you think are are mathematically consistent/human inconsistent and which the inverse?
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 22:42:03 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: However, those expectations are based on the inside-out syntax of C. Naturally, wanting to be consistent, especially compared to C, D should deviate from that syntax. I don't get to read the original email, but I agree with the examples you pull out. D's array declaration syntax is so nice. The support for C style syntax is unfortunate though.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
Some of the inconsistencies you mentioned and Brian mentioned in his talk are actually the result of consistencies. I know this is a bit of a difficult thing to wrap one's head around, but having something be mathematically consistent and humanly consistent are often at severe odds.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On 05/28/2014 03:10 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Tue, 27 May 2014 06:42:41 -1000 > Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce > wrote: > > > > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26m8hy/scott_meyers_dconf_2014_keynote_the_last_thing_d/ > > > > https://news.ycombinator.com/newest (search that page, if not found > > click "More" and search again) > > > > https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/855022447844771 > > > > https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/471330026168651777 > > Fortunately, for the most part, I think that we've avoided the types of > inconsistencies that Scott describes for C++, but we do definitely have some > of our own. The ones that come to mind at the moment are: > > 1. The order of the dimensions of multi-dimensional static arrays is backwards > in comparison to what most everyone expects. However, those expectations are based on the inside-out syntax of C. Naturally, wanting to be consistent, especially compared to C, D should deviate from that syntax. > int[4][5][6] foo; That is sane: It is alwasy "first the type then the size": int[1]good Animal[2] good Following from that rule (i.e. first type, then size), how would I have an array of 3 elements where each element is an array of 4 elements. Let's see... Each element is int[4]. There: int[4] Then, I want an array of 3 of those. There: int[4][3] good This is one of the commonish arguments in the D forums that I have the strongest opinion because there is no problem with D's syntax at all. It is consistent. It is consistent even when indexing. The index is for the array: int[1] a; a[0]; // the first element of a; it is an int int[2][3] b; b[0]; // the first element of b; it is an int[2] I don't see any problem at all. :) Remembering that there is no such thing as a multi-dimensional array in D (nor C), it just follows naturally: b[0][1]; // the second int of the first int[2] > is the same as > > int foo[6][5][4]; That's beyond ridiculous. I am glad that D avoided that problem for both function pointers and arrays. > and has the same dimensions as > > auto bar = new int[][][](6, 5, 4); That makes perfect sense to me, because this is a function API, not D syntax. There is no ambiguity in saying "you go deeper into the element sizes as you provide the arguments." Ali
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Tue, 27 May 2014 06:42:41 -1000 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26m8hy/scott_meyers_dconf_2014_keynote_the_last_thing_d/ > > https://news.ycombinator.com/newest (search that page, if not found > click "More" and search again) > > https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/855022447844771 > > https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/471330026168651777 Fortunately, for the most part, I think that we've avoided the types of inconsistencies that Scott describes for C++, but we do definitely have some of our own. The ones that come to mind at the moment are: 1. The order of the dimensions of multi-dimensional static arrays is backwards in comparison to what most everyone expects. int[4][5][6] foo; is the same as int foo[6][5][4]; and has the same dimensions as auto bar = new int[][][](6, 5, 4); The reasons for it stem from the fact that the compiler reads types outward from the variable name (which is very important to understand in C because of its function pointer syntax but not so important in D). However, once we did const(int)* foo; and didn't allow (int)const* foo; I think that we threw that particular bit of consistency with C/C++ out the window, and we really should have just made static array dimensions be read from left-to-right. Unfortunately, I don't think that we can fix that at this point, because doing so would cause silent breakage (or at minimum, would be silent until RangeErrors were thrown at runtime). 2. We're inconsistent with dynamic array dimensions. auto foo = new int[5]; is the same as auto foo = new int[](5); but once you get into multi-dimensional arrays, it's just confusing, because auto foo = new int[4][5][6]; does _not_ declare a multi-dimensional dynimac array but rather a dynamic array of length 6 which contains a multi-dimensonal static array of dimensions 4 and 5. Instead, what you need to do is auto foo = new int[][][](4, 5, 6); IMHO, we should have made it illegal to have dynamic array dimensions inside of the brackets rather than the parens, but I don't know if we can change that. It wouldn't be silent breakage, but it _would_ make it so that a lot of existing code would be broken - especially because so many people put the array dimensions between the brackets for single-dimension dynamic arrays. 3. const, immutable, and inout on the left-hand side of a function declaration are unfortunately legal. This inevitably trips people up, because they think that the attribute applies to the return type, when it applies to the function itself. This is to make the function attributes consistent, because all of the others can go on either side, but the result is that it's essentially bad practice to ever put any attribute on the left-hand side which could apply to the return type, because it looks like a bug. If we just made it illegal for those attributes to go on the left, the problem would be solved, and the result would be far less confusing and bug-prone. I think that we can make that change with minimal breakage (since it's already bad practice to put them no the left-hand side), but AFAIK, Walter is against the idea. 4. There are some cases (such as with static constructors and unittest blocks) that the attributes have to go on the left for some reason. I don't remember the reasons for it, but it's an inconsistency which definitely trips up even seasoned D programmers from time to time. 5. The fact that pure is called pure is very problematic at this point as far as explaining things to folks goes. We should probably consider renaming it to something like @noglobal, but I'm not sure that that would go over very well given the amount of breakage involved. It _does_ require a lot of explaining though. 6. The situation with ranges and string is kind of ugly, with them being treated as ranges of code points. I don't know what the correct solution to this is, since treating them as ranges of code units promotes efficiency but makes code more error-prone, whereas treating them as ranges of graphemes would just cost too much. Ranges of code points is _mostly_ correct but still incorrect and _more_ efficient than graphemes but still quite a bit less efficient than code units. So, it's kind of like it's got the best and worst of both worlds. The current situation causes inconsistencies with everything else (forcing us to use isNarrowString all over the place) and definitely requires frequent explaining, but it does prevent some classes of problems. So, I don't know. I used to be in favor of the current situation, but at this point, if we could change it, I think that I'd argue in faver of just treating them as ranges of code units and then have wrappers for ranges of code points or graphemes. It seems like the current situation promotes either using ubyte[] (if you care about efficiency) or the new grapheme facilities in std.uni if you care about cor
Re: Adam D. Ruppe's "D Cookbook" now available!
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 19:06:04 UTC, Misu wrote: Thank you, I ordered mine as well ! I am already half through mine :) Great stuff!
Re: Adam D. Ruppe's "D Cookbook" now available!
Thank you, I ordered mine as well !
Re: Adam D. Ruppe's "D Cookbook" now available!
I have just ordered mine. I can't wait to get it !
Adam D. Ruppe's "D Cookbook" now available!
http://www.packtpub.com/discover-advantages-of-programming-in-d-cookbook/book http://www.amazon.com/D-Cookbook-Adam-D-Ruppe/dp/1783287217 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26pn00/d_cookbook_officially_published_consists_of_d/ After watching Adam's most excellent presentation at Dconf, I'm sure the book will be great! My copy gets here on Friday.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On 5/28/2014 2:28 AM, John Colvin wrote: On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 21:40:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 5/27/2014 2:22 PM, w0rp wrote: I'm actually a native speaker of 25 years and I didn't get it at first. Natural language communicates ideas approximately. What bugs me is when people say: I could care less. when they mean: I couldn't care less. and: If you think that, you have another thing coming. when they mean: If you think that, you have another think coming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw&feature=kp At least the Queen and I agree on something!
Re: My D book is now officially coming soon
On 5/28/2014 10:34 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: I just posted it to reddit btw: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26pn00/d_cookbook_officially_published_consists_of_d/ Just snagged my copy!
Re: My D book is now officially coming soon
I just posted it to reddit btw: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26pn00/d_cookbook_officially_published_consists_of_d/
Re: Video of my LDC talk @ FOSDEM'14
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 09:14:18 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote: On 27/05/2014 1:15 PM, Tommi wrote: On Monday, 26 May 2014 at 05:59:35 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote: [..] http://video.fosdem.org/2014/K4401/Sunday/LDC_the_LLVMbased_D_compiler.webm I can't watch this on my iPhone. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/vlc-for-ios/id650377962?mt=8 Thanks. It worked. To anyone interested, you open the VLC app, click the cone in the upper left corner, select Open Network Stream and copy-paste the address of the video.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 08:58:34 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg wrote: I just noticed someone posted a link to the talk at gamedev[0]. I don't know who the poster is but the gamedev.net community is pretty large; this should result in quite some extra views :) Out of curiosity - did anyone try to post it to slashdot? If not as a news article then maybe in the comments? Andrzej [0] http://www.gamedev.net/topic/657103-scott-meyers-the-last-thing-d-needs/
Re: My D book is now officially coming soon
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 16:51:56 UTC, Mattcoder wrote: On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 14:06:33 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 08:01:00 UTC, Mike James wrote: I'm looking at getting the ebook version - does that version include the errata described above? Yeah, those errors were in the .doc I sent in after revisions on chapter 1 and we didn't catch them in the final draft. But the subsequent chapters did them all right so hopefully people won't be turned off by the (IMO fairly weak anyway) first chapter before things get interesting later on. Question: But any mistakes like those founded will be updated? And if it yes, who already purchased the PDF book will be able to download the new file corrected too? Matheus. s/founded/found.
Re: My D book is now officially coming soon
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 14:06:33 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 08:01:00 UTC, Mike James wrote: I'm looking at getting the ebook version - does that version include the errata described above? Yeah, those errors were in the .doc I sent in after revisions on chapter 1 and we didn't catch them in the final draft. But the subsequent chapters did them all right so hopefully people won't be turned off by the (IMO fairly weak anyway) first chapter before things get interesting later on. Question: But any mistakes like those founded will be updated? And if it yes, who already purchased the PDF book will be able to download the new file corrected too? Matheus.
Re: My D book is now officially coming soon
On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 10:00:01 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: On Tuesday, 6 May 2014 at 19:58:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 5/6/2014 9:11 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 6 May 2014 at 12:40:48 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: Any way to see the TOC? Hmm, not on the website yet but here it is. > [snip] Sounds awesome! Jus got mail from PacktPub: D Cookbook is now released: http://www.packtpub.com/discover-advantages-of-programming-in-d-cookbook/book Congratz! Thanks for the update. I have the pdf loaded up now, looking forward to going through it.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 14:39:53 UTC, anonymous_me wrote: The first line: int x2; // (at global scope) The x2 resides in Thread Local Storage (TLS). A __gshared would put it in global scope. Still initialized to int.init which is zero. D doesn't have global scope. C++ does not do TLS but that isn't relevant to the no cost position that C++ is taking.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Wed, 28 May 2014 04:48:09 +, Jesse Phillips wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 16:42:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu > wrote: >> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26m8hy/scott_meyers_dconf_2014_keynote_the_last_thing_d/ >> >> https://news.ycombinator.com/newest (search that page, if not >> found click "More" and search again) >> >> https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/855022447844771 >> >> https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/471330026168651777 >> >> >> Andrei > > I did a translation of most of the code in the slides. > > http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/72b5cfcb72e4 > > I'm planning to transform it into blog post (or series). Right > now it just has some scratch notes. Feel free to let me know > everything I got wrong. The first line: int x2; // (at global scope) The x2 resides in Thread Local Storage (TLS). A __gshared would put it in global scope. Still initialized to int.init which is zero.
Re: Per popular demand, here are Adam D Ruppe's presentation slides
On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 05:23:03 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: I always chalked it up to the whole "nerd" thing: Inverse relationship in outgoingness between in-person vs semi-anonymous. I don't think I'm /that/ much different; I rarely start threads, for example, but will talk in replies, which is analogous to waiting for someone else to approach me in person then having the discussion before going back into the shadows once it runs its course. I also lurk on forums for a pretty long time before posting, similarly to how I sit quietly in bigger groups until I get to know the people (and generally until someone on the inside takes me under their wing).
Re: My D book is now officially coming soon
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 08:01:00 UTC, Mike James wrote: I'm looking at getting the ebook version - does that version include the errata described above? Yeah, those errors were in the .doc I sent in after revisions on chapter 1 and we didn't catch them in the final draft. But the subsequent chapters did them all right so hopefully people won't be turned off by the (IMO fairly weak anyway) first chapter before things get interesting later on.
Re: Per popular demand, here are Adam D Ruppe's presentation slides
On Friday, 23 May 2014 at 19:29:12 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Adam graciously shared the slides of his DConf 2014 talk with us: http://imgur.com/hHCN3OL Andrei This was best marketing for Adam book possible :) Someone who can talk for an hour without any visual helpers while still maintaining good information structure must be really good at writing books ;)
Re: Dconf 2014 talks - when to be available
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 12:20:34 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 28/05/2014 04:54, Saurabh Das wrote: I actually prefer the slow release of the videos - it gives me enough time to digest each talk and discuss it before the next one grabs mine and everyone else's attention. I think releasing one video every few days leads to much more in-depth discussion on the forum as well. I agree with this. video release != video announcement
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 21:40:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 5/27/2014 2:22 PM, w0rp wrote: I'm actually a native speaker of 25 years and I didn't get it at first. Natural language communicates ideas approximately. What bugs me is when people say: I could care less. when they mean: I couldn't care less. and: If you think that, you have another thing coming. when they mean: If you think that, you have another think coming. Whats wrong with "If you think that, you have another thing coming."? I've always understood it sort of like say your Father saying: "If you think that [i.e. you can steal your little brother's ice cream cone], then you have another thing [i.e no ice cream, but maybe the leather strap] coming."
Re: My D book is now officially coming soon
On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 09:06:12 UTC, Alix Pexton wrote: On 28/05/2014 9:00 AM, Mike James wrote: On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 14:20:49 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 13:27:56 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: Will epub version be available too? Yeah, I think it is already on the packt website. I'm looking at getting the ebook version - does that version include the errata described above? -- I've not checked them side-by-side the whole way through but the ePub does have the same triple colons as the PDF. the ePub uses colour instead of font weight for the keywords in the text and the notes and tips are styled differently, but as far as I've seen so far the content is the same. A... Thanks. As 'early adopters' do we get a chance to upgrade :-) --
Re: Dconf 2014 talks - when to be available
On 28/05/2014 04:54, Saurabh Das wrote: I actually prefer the slow release of the videos - it gives me enough time to digest each talk and discuss it before the next one grabs mine and everyone else's attention. I think releasing one video every few days leads to much more in-depth discussion on the forum as well. I agree with this. -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 21:40:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 5/27/2014 2:22 PM, w0rp wrote: I'm actually a native speaker of 25 years and I didn't get it at first. Natural language communicates ideas approximately. What bugs me is when people say: I could care less. when they mean: I couldn't care less. and: If you think that, you have another thing coming. when they mean: If you think that, you have another think coming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw&feature=kp
Re: Video of my LDC talk @ FOSDEM'14
On 27/05/2014 1:15 PM, Tommi wrote: On Monday, 26 May 2014 at 05:59:35 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote: [..] http://video.fosdem.org/2014/K4401/Sunday/LDC_the_LLVMbased_D_compiler.webm I can't watch this on my iPhone. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/vlc-for-ios/id650377962?mt=8
Re: Dconf 2014 talks - when to be available
Jacob Carlborg, el 28 de May a las 08:18 me escribiste: > On 28/05/14 00:15, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > > >I think they should be uploaded all ASAP and then you can do "official" > >announcements in reddit or wherever you thinks it's best to promote the > >language. But really, introducing artificial waiting time for people > >ALREADY interested and using the language in the name of marketing is > >really annoying! > > Yeah, I completely agree. It's like when movies were first released > in the movie theaters, then, a year later on DVD. Now days people > expect them to be released almost at the same time for > streaming/downloading. Maybe we need an underground group that leaks D talks in bittorrent so we can get them fresh 8-) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- No es malo que en la condición humana exista la mentira. Miente el púber si quiere ponerla. -- Ricardo Vaporeso. Madrid, 1921.
Re: My D book is now officially coming soon
On 28/05/2014 9:00 AM, Mike James wrote: On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 14:20:49 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 13:27:56 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: Will epub version be available too? Yeah, I think it is already on the packt website. I'm looking at getting the ebook version - does that version include the errata described above? -- I've not checked them side-by-side the whole way through but the ePub does have the same triple colons as the PDF. the ePub uses colour instead of font weight for the keywords in the text and the notes and tips are styled differently, but as far as I've seen so far the content is the same. A...
Re: Dconf 2014 talks - when to be available
Saurabh Das, el 28 de May a las 03:54 me escribiste: > On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 23:48:44 UTC, currysoup wrote: > >On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 23:08:01 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >>Ali Çehreli, el 27 de May a las 10:40 me escribiste: > >>>On 05/27/2014 09:18 AM, Suliman wrote: > >>> > > apparently to stay on top of reddit for awhile. > Explain plz > >>> > >>>A benefit of releasing the presentations slowly is to enable > >>>constant exposure to DConf in the coming weeks, as opposed to > >>>making > >>>all of them available and potentially watch interest die in a > >>>few > >>>days. > >> > >>I think they should be uploaded all ASAP and then you can do > >>"official" > >>announcements in reddit or wherever you thinks it's best to > >>promote the > >>language. But really, introducing artificial waiting time for > >>people > >>ALREADY interested and using the language in the name of > >>marketing is > >>really annoying! > > > >I agree 100%. Educating people currently interested is as > >important as marketing. > > I actually prefer the slow release of the videos - it gives me > enough time to digest each talk and discuss it before the next one > grabs mine and everyone else's attention. I think releasing one > video every few days leads to much more in-depth discussion on the > forum as well. Nodoby is stopping you from doing that with what I proposed. All you have to do is still do the one-every-few-days "official" releases, with a nice announcement. It could be called "featured talk of today" or whatever. Just because some people need some time digest talks it makes NO SENSE to have all the rest of the people that doesn't have that problem FORCED to wait. Seriously. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 16:42:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/26m8hy/scott_meyers_dconf_2014_keynote_the_last_thing_d/ https://news.ycombinator.com/newest (search that page, if not found click "More" and search again) https://www.facebook.com/dlang.org/posts/855022447844771 https://twitter.com/D_Programming/status/471330026168651777 Andrei I just noticed someone posted a link to the talk at gamedev[0]. I don't know who the poster is but the gamedev.net community is pretty large; this should result in quite some extra views :) [0] http://www.gamedev.net/topic/657103-scott-meyers-the-last-thing-d-needs/
Re: Dconf 2014 talks - when to be available
On 05/28/2014 05:54 AM, Saurabh Das wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 23:48:44 UTC, currysoup wrote: >> On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 23:08:01 UTC, Leandro Lucarella wrote: >>> Ali Çehreli, el 27 de May a las 10:40 me escribiste: On 05/27/2014 09:18 AM, Suliman wrote: >> apparently to stay on top of reddit for awhile. > Explain plz A benefit of releasing the presentations slowly is to enable constant exposure to DConf in the coming weeks, as opposed to making all of them available and potentially watch interest die in a few days. >>> >>> I think they should be uploaded all ASAP and then you can do "official" >>> announcements in reddit or wherever you thinks it's best to promote the >>> language. But really, introducing artificial waiting time for people >>> ALREADY interested and using the language in the name of marketing is >>> really annoying! >> >> I agree 100%. Educating people currently interested is as >> important as marketing. > > I actually prefer the slow release of the videos - it gives me enough > time to digest each talk and discuss it before the next one grabs mine > and everyone else's attention. I think releasing one video every few > days leads to much more in-depth discussion on the forum as well. Agree. I find it nice to have each video gaining some time in the spotlight and the discussions that follow. Even though I'm so exited I actually want all the videos at once!
Re: My D book is now officially coming soon
On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 14:20:49 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Tuesday, 27 May 2014 at 13:27:56 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote: Will epub version be available too? Yeah, I think it is already on the packt website. I'm looking at getting the ebook version - does that version include the errata described above? --
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
woudl be nice to have some sort of example by example comparison or as an extension to the page http://dlang.org/cpptod.html Am 28.05.2014 07:40, schrieb Jesse Phillips: On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 at 05:30:18 UTC, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: I did a translation of most of the code in the slides. http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/72b5cfcb72e4 I'm planning to transform it into blog post (or series). Right now it just has some scratch notes. Feel free to let me know everything I got wrong. That's a good idea. I think most of us did that while listening to the talk. I kept telling myself: 'oh wait, that'd simpler in D' or 'that does not exist in D'. As for the class inheritance problem, I'd also be interested in an answer. When he explained why C++ inferred a const int type as int, he tripped me up because D does drop const for value types. But D does the simple to explain thing, may not be the expected thing (seen questions about it in D.learn), but it is simple to explain.
Re: Scott Meyers' DConf 2014 keynote "The Last Thing D Needs"
On 5/27/2014 10:40 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote: When he explained why C++ inferred a const int type as int, he tripped me up because D does drop const for value types. But D does the simple to explain thing, may not be the expected thing (seen questions about it in D.learn), but it is simple to explain. We have at times opted for an "easy to explain" rule rather than a semantically perfect one. For example, I've rejected several proposals to make function overloading more fine-grained on such grounds. I've rarely met anyone who could explain how C++'s function overloading rules actually work, they just try arbitrary things until it selects the function they want it to.
