Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 06/04/2018 11:46 PM, RalphBa wrote: Sorry to hear that. Since I do not belive Microsoft changed perspective and am convinced they still see open source as cancer I need to assume they try to inflitrate the OSS community the last years. So for sure I won't rely on their stuff. So is there a chance Digital Mars and D main development is getting bought by Microsoft? BR Ralph They have C++ and C#. What do they need D for? -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender import quiet.dlang.dev;
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 06/04/2018 08:53 PM, Adam Wilson wrote: On 6/3/18 20:51, Anton Fediushin wrote: This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is today). Some articles about the topic: https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/ https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub? Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D projects - dub registry supported them for a while now. IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind the GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and programmers to improve it further, I just don't trust them too much which is the right thing to do when dealing with companies. This means that I will move my repositories elsewhere and use GitHub just to contribute to other projects. I've been thinking how to best respond to this and here is where I am. First, let me state up-front that I work for Microsoft (Office 365 Workplace Analytics). Second, my employer (Volometrix) prior to working for Microsoft was acquired by Microsoft almost three years ago. What that means is that while my division had no fore-warning of this acquisition I have first-hand experience with what will be happening at GitHub over the next months and years. As an employee of Microsoft I am required to follow Microsoft's policy on Social Media, which can be reduced to "If you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all." Or stated plainly, what follows may or may not represent the entirety of my thoughts on the matter as I am effectively barred from revealing any negative thoughts. So what I can say about this acquisition is that it is the best possible outcome of GitHub's possible futures for both the company and the employees. GitHub has not been profitable for years and is thought to have had cash reserves for only one or two more months of operations. Losing GitHub entirely overnight would have been an unmitigated disaster for the entire Open-Source community. And there are fates worse than death. Imagine for a second GitHub at Google or ... *shudder* Oracle. Whatever your opinions about Microsoft, you cannot possible imagine that either of those outcomes would have been qualitatively better. In that sense Microsoft was the best of the bad options GitHub. As to any other concerns/opinions, all I will say is ... think laterally. As a reminder I have no inside information on what goes on over in the Azure world and that is where GitHub will land as has been announced. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender import quiet.dlang.dev;
SecureD moving to GitLab
Hello Fellow D'ers, As some of you know I work for Microsoft. And as a result of the recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, I have decided, out of an abundance of caution, to move all of my projects that currently reside on GitHub to GitLab. Additionally, until I cease working for Microsoft, I will no longer be contributing code to projects hosted on GitHub, including DLang and it's related projects. I will continue to contribute bug reports and post to the forums. I will post a link to the new SecureD repo on this thread and update the DUB links once I have everything setup correctly post-move. DISCLAIMER: The actions described herein are the result of my specific situation and not intended as a larger commentary on recent events. This message should not be considered legal advice in any way. Any Microsoft employees reading this thread should refer to their lawyers about their specific situation or concerns. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender import quiet.dlang.dev;
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
Sorry to hear that. Since I do not belive Microsoft changed perspective and am convinced they still see open source as cancer I need to assume they try to inflitrate the OSS community the last years. So for sure I won't rely on their stuff. So is there a chance Digital Mars and D main development is getting bought by Microsoft? BR Ralph
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 6/3/18 20:51, Anton Fediushin wrote: This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is today). Some articles about the topic: https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/ https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub? Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D projects - dub registry supported them for a while now. IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind the GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and programmers to improve it further, I just don't trust them too much which is the right thing to do when dealing with companies. This means that I will move my repositories elsewhere and use GitHub just to contribute to other projects. I've been thinking how to best respond to this and here is where I am. First, let me state up-front that I work for Microsoft (Office 365 Workplace Analytics). Second, my employer (Volometrix) prior to working for Microsoft was acquired by Microsoft almost three years ago. What that means is that while my division had no fore-warning of this acquisition I have first-hand experience with what will be happening at GitHub over the next months and years. As an employee of Microsoft I am required to follow Microsoft's policy on Social Media, which can be reduced to "If you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all." Or stated plainly, what follows may or may not represent the entirety of my thoughts on the matter as I am effectively barred from revealing any negative thoughts. So what I can say about this acquisition is that it is the best possible outcome of GitHub's possible futures for both the company and the employees. GitHub has not been profitable for years and is thought to have had cash reserves for only one or two more months of operations. Losing GitHub entirely overnight would have been an unmitigated disaster for the entire Open-Source community. And there are fates worse than death. Imagine for a second GitHub at Google or ... *shudder* Oracle. Whatever your opinions about Microsoft, you cannot possible imagine that either of those outcomes would have been qualitatively better. In that sense Microsoft was the best of the bad options GitHub. As to any other concerns/opinions, all I will say is ... think laterally. -- Adam Wilson IRC: LightBender import quiet.dlang.dev;
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:26:23 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote: [...] Unlikely, you don't spend $7.5 billion on a company because you want to send a message that you're a good dev tools company, then neglect it. I suggest you look at their online slides linked from the Nadella blog post to see their stated plan, such as integrating github into VS Code more: http://aka.ms/ms06042018 Of course, this is Microsoft: they probably won't execute that plan well, and likely vastly overpaid for an unprofitable company in the first place, but they emphasize that they intend to keep github open and independent. Yeah, like they did codeplex!
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:26:23 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote: Unlikely, you don't spend $7.5 billion on a company because you want to send a message that you're a good dev tools company, then neglect it. You have no idea about how big corporations' management spends money. As with Nokia and Skype - I don't know whether it was initially a plan to destroy products or management was just silly. I suggest you look at their online slides linked from the Nadella blog post to see their stated plan, such as integrating github into VS Code more: http://aka.ms/ms06042018 and likely vastly overpaid for an unprofitable company in the first place :) this is exactly how such deals are done - paying $7.5 bl. for nonprofitable company. Unfortunately, their books are unavailable because they are private company, but scarce information in the web suggests that in most of their years they have losses. Just as rough estimate: to support $7.5 bl valuation Microsoft must turn -$30 ml. net loss company into business generating around $750 ml. for many years. There is no way to get these money from the market. Alternatively, the project can have payoff if something is broken and Microsoft cash flows increase by $750 ml. This is more likely... but they emphasize that they intend to keep github open and independent. They can claim anything which suits best their interests right now. Or, as alternative, github can be broken in a such way, that their promises on surface are kept. Business is badly compatible with opensource by design.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 6/4/18 2:46 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote: Of course MS does, since they spent $5 billion on it. They will try their best to make profit out of it, just like they did with LinkedIn. $7.5 billion. -Steve
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 6/3/18 11:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote: This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is today). Some articles about the topic: https://fossbytes.com/microsoft-github-aquisition-report/ https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub? Of course. Both GitLab and Bitbucket can be used instead to host your D projects - dub registry supported them for a while now. I use both bitbucket and github. I think I will simply continue to use what makes sense at the time (as Jonathan pointed out, hosting a private repository is free on bitbucket). IMHO Microsoft isn't the type of company I want to see behind the GitHub. Maybe I am wrong since Microsoft has both money and programmers to improve it further, I just don't trust them too much which is the right thing to do when dealing with companies. This means that I will move my repositories elsewhere and use GitHub just to contribute to other projects. I don't know if it makes any difference to me. Sure, they have infrastructure and market share, but all that changes if they do something really annoying. There are good competing sites, and people will just move their stuff. I'm sure it wouldn't take long for someone to make software that ports your entire github project to gitlab or whatever, maybe it already exists. Microsoft just isn't the same big bad company that once paid for Linux licenses from SCO group to fund their lawsuit against Linux. This past year, they actually incorporated part of Linux into their OS! I don't think this is necessarily going to be bad for github. One thing I have read that is intriguing: if you are a Microsoft competitor and you have private-source repos at github, how do you feel about that? -Steve
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 08:42:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/3/2018 8:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote: This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is today). We'll stay on Github as long as it continues to serve our interests, which it has done very well, and I have no reason to believe will change. We have a number of ties to Microsoft: 1. It's just down the street. 2. Many D users work at Microsoft. 3. Microsoft has always been helpful and supportive of Digital Mars, note the files licensed from Microsoft in the distribution. 4. Microsoft has invited myself and Andrei to speak at Microsoft from time to time. 5. Microsoft hosts the nwcpp.org meetings, which provide a venue for me to try out D presentations to a friendly crowd. 6. Microsoft has been generous with helping me solve some vexing compatibility problems from time to time. OK, so Digital Mars is in good relationship with Microsoft (I am surprised because have never heard about it). However, judging by Microsoft acqusition experience my prediction is that github will slowly but surely degradate (as suggested on some forums, everything will be firstly switched to Microsoft account - to track data, then everything will be mangled by ads, then some features deemed unnecessary by Microsoft will be removed, then linux will be badly supoorted, then some features incompatible with Microsoft services will stop working, then servers will start work poorly like skype...). P.S. My second reaction after reading news (after shock) was to visit D forum. Unlikely, you don't spend $7.5 billion on a company because you want to send a message that you're a good dev tools company, then neglect it. I suggest you look at their online slides linked from the Nadella blog post to see their stated plan, such as integrating github into VS Code more: http://aka.ms/ms06042018 Of course, this is Microsoft: they probably won't execute that plan well, and likely vastly overpaid for an unprofitable company in the first place, but they emphasize that they intend to keep github open and independent.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 08:42:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/3/2018 8:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote: This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is today). We'll stay on Github as long as it continues to serve our interests, which it has done very well, and I have no reason to believe will change. We have a number of ties to Microsoft: 1. It's just down the street. 2. Many D users work at Microsoft. 3. Microsoft has always been helpful and supportive of Digital Mars, note the files licensed from Microsoft in the distribution. 4. Microsoft has invited myself and Andrei to speak at Microsoft from time to time. 5. Microsoft hosts the nwcpp.org meetings, which provide a venue for me to try out D presentations to a friendly crowd. 6. Microsoft has been generous with helping me solve some vexing compatibility problems from time to time. OK, so Digital Mars is in good relationship with Microsoft (I am surprised because have never heard about it). However, judging by Microsoft acqusition experience my prediction is that github will slowly but surely degradate (as suggested on some forums, everything will be firstly switched to Microsoft account - to track data, then everything will be mangled by ads, then some features deemed unnecessary by Microsoft will be removed, then linux will be badly supoorted, then some features incompatible with Microsoft services will stop working, then servers will start work poorly like skype...). P.S. My second reaction after reading news (after shock) was to visit D forum.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 18:17:24 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 09:47:58 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote: Oh look, rumours are confirmed: https://itsfoss.com/microsoft-github/ MS bought GitHub for $5 billion. It's official, Nat Friedman, formerly of Xamarin, is the new CEO: https://blog.github.com/2018-06-04-github-microsoft/ Also, there's an article from Satya Nadella, current CEO of Microsoft: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/06/04/microsoft-github-empowering-developers/ MS is basically selling a story to Wall Street, "Everything new we tried since Windows and Office has failed abysmally, so we've learned our lesson and will be the business software company from now on," hence buying LinkedIn, pushing Azure, and now buying Github. I don't expect this new management direction to go any better. Of course MS does, since they spent $5 billion on it. They will try their best to make profit out of it, just like they did with LinkedIn.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 09:47:58 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote: Oh look, rumours are confirmed: https://itsfoss.com/microsoft-github/ MS bought GitHub for $5 billion. It's official, Nat Friedman, formerly of Xamarin, is the new CEO: https://blog.github.com/2018-06-04-github-microsoft/ MS is basically selling a story to Wall Street, "Everything new we tried since Windows and Office has failed abysmally, so we've learned our lesson and will be the business software company from now on," hence buying LinkedIn, pushing Azure, and now buying Github. I don't expect this new management direction to go any better.
Re: Driving Continuous Improvement in D
On 6/4/18 1:51 PM, Joakim wrote: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 15:52:24 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 6/2/18 3:23 AM, Mike Parker wrote: [...] I like the article, but was taken aback a bit by this quote: "for example, a PR to fix a bug in a specific piece of code mustn’t also edit the documentation of that function." [...] I think he was talking about _unrelated_ doc changes. Well, how unrelated? If, for instance, you are changing the docs to accommodate the new code, and notice a typo, I would be fine with fixing that, and have even ASKED for that. I guess I need a bigger clarification, as the way it reads is that we require people split their doc changes from their code changes, and that simply hasn't been the case. -Steve
Re: Driving Continuous Improvement in D
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 15:52:24 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 6/2/18 3:23 AM, Mike Parker wrote: [...] I like the article, but was taken aback a bit by this quote: "for example, a PR to fix a bug in a specific piece of code mustn’t also edit the documentation of that function." [...] I think he was talking about _unrelated_ doc changes.
Re: Beta 2.080.1
On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 11:14 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via […] > I just submitted a PR to fix > https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18934 > > I used stable. I'm hoping it could get in for this release. > > https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6544 > > -Steve So am I. -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: DIP Draft Review News
On 05/06/2018 3:45 AM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 11:28:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Thought: Couldn't we have alternative names in the parameter
instead? E.g.
```D
void foo(int x/x0/width, int y/y0/height){}
```
This intuitively means that any combination of the parameter names would
work (e.g. (x, y0), (width, y)), which is not what we want.
You will need to amend the DIP to confirm that a primary use case
(alternative names) is not usable with templated functions if you do not
want to do an alternative method.
Re: Driving Continuous Improvement in D
On 6/2/18 3:23 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
In this post for the D Blog, Jack Stouffer details how dscanner is used
in the Phobos development process to help improve code quality and fight
entropy.
The blog:
https://dlang.org/blog/2018/06/02/driving-continuous-improvement-in-d/
reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8nyzmk/driving_continuous_improvement_in_d/
I like the article, but was taken aback a bit by this quote: "for
example, a PR to fix a bug in a specific piece of code mustn’t also edit
the documentation of that function."
Really? I both was not aware of this policy, and don't understand why
you wouldn't fix the docs at the same time. Can you elaborate?
I'll give you an example of what I was thinking of. Let's say you have a
function foo:
/**
* foo takes a parameter and returns true if ...
*/
bool foo(T)(T t) { ... }
And you realize foo really should only take integer parameters:
/**
* foo takes integer parameters and returns true if ...
*/
bool foo(T)(T t) if (isIntegral!T) { ... }
Why not both edit the function and fix the docs in the same PR? In fact,
why would we *accept* the change without updating the docs?
-Steve
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 15:08:01 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: In many respects, they're better behaved than they used to be. They're biggest problems seem to have to do with what they're doing with Windows (e.g. tracking what you're doing and not letting you turn it off). It's certainly not desriable that they bought github, but it probably won't have any obvious effects for a while. The biggest concerns probably have to do with collecting data on users, and github was doutblessly doing that already. - Jonathan M Davis At least in the EU we had a big GDPR Windows Update that let you disable every tracking. All in all an amazing law (for the user) that would make sense for regulators to import.
Re: DIP Draft Review News
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 11:28:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
Thought: Couldn't we have alternative names in the parameter
instead? E.g.
```D
void foo(int x/x0/width, int y/y0/height){}
```
This intuitively means that any combination of the parameter
names would work (e.g. (x, y0), (width, y)), which is not what we
want.
Re: Beta 2.080.1
On 6/4/18 7:44 AM, Martin Nowak wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 First beta for the 2.080.1 patch release. Comes with a handful of fixes. http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta http://dlang.org/changelog/2.080.1.html Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org - -Martin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEpzRNrTw0HqEtE8TmsnOBFhK7GTkFAlsVJfgACgkQsnOBFhK7 GTkr5Q//Se1gg7PfPoywWLdBkiO7sSqaZf0BFsCXFbaB8tnXaS0IZ7xyHej2Lun8 VNnWi1kPBXKBt6JLpcBU63u1Gl6IuBDVjPG4wJArb6QrzL73bL2DgBfASm+ZnzWb VzxUJTmlaCIw6FsXAMEMy4L7p+VDHRN4zWBLgh24r2aEuJ5jacUyWRZG3L5MStAT 3QkOCjYpVsGg6QPklfJHbRI0zFv8qZKGP+ab1vOegfObkrcqF1g5y2e+Bigla8MJ llhvJWBtmDJYklhDXZN3oOL66c2JykScHa9qArKb45Xk6wtSdCJGDhbpY2wrLHcc 4SnOd6ZxPQ0M0ON/bL5Fm7BNebT2QQZWTdasHVXMsokV9uW9FKX/BA1VOsuJvvb9 /mmaY1MUAb1S4y1+RoY6nfN9G8RH9S5vujV9F4kWjnH0J3rc66lPMfOnOU1Wckup APaXg2L10sZaQ4Z+a4Gh5a5synWkUJB09q4jBKb90gTUsiN6Erp4GCAZ6PKRbkJ1 Z6jK8yAgrstCi7ctg0QYrH6EGBqigAP13itbBKfOmB0DH010oNY1i9GB9vc1zvSM jpdoCYX1pe4ljeMZXZDiTyGTM5g4TklBsdvwC5PTuvvFKNvU4K8RKg6Zy4FqHq0R bEl63PWSmE3hrMBjrk41qxw/NEs5UgtkPYBl1aWv49+EfIhXMyA= =W/Qn -END PGP SIGNATURE- I just submitted a PR to fix https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18934 I used stable. I'm hoping it could get in for this release. https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/6544 -Steve
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, June 04, 2018 14:51:24 Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:50:26 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote: > > I can think of hundreds of things what can go wrong including: > > forcing users to use Microsoft accounts > > That didn't happen to skype yet. > MS recently tries to mend its reputation, though the past will > linger for a while. In many respects, they're better behaved than they used to be. They're biggest problems seem to have to do with what they're doing with Windows (e.g. tracking what you're doing and not letting you turn it off). It's certainly not desriable that they bought github, but it probably won't have any obvious effects for a while. The biggest concerns probably have to do with collecting data on users, and github was doutblessly doing that already. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:50:26 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote: I can think of hundreds of things what can go wrong including: forcing users to use Microsoft accounts That didn't happen to skype yet. MS recently tries to mend its reputation, though the past will linger for a while.
Re: Beta 2.080.1
On 06/04/2018 02:25 PM, MrSmith wrote: > Is [1] included in that release? > [1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18821 Thanks for the reminder :), the fix was merged into master instead of stable. Just picked it over. We usually avoid cherry-picking as it leads to unnecessary merge conflicts.
Re: Beta 2.080.1
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 11:44:31 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: First beta for the 2.080.1 patch release. Comes with a handful of fixes. http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta http://dlang.org/changelog/2.080.1.html Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org - -Martin Is [1] included in that release? [1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18821
Beta 2.080.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 First beta for the 2.080.1 patch release. Comes with a handful of fixes. http://dlang.org/download.html#dmd_beta http://dlang.org/changelog/2.080.1.html Please report any bugs at https://issues.dlang.org - -Martin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEpzRNrTw0HqEtE8TmsnOBFhK7GTkFAlsVJfgACgkQsnOBFhK7 GTkr5Q//Se1gg7PfPoywWLdBkiO7sSqaZf0BFsCXFbaB8tnXaS0IZ7xyHej2Lun8 VNnWi1kPBXKBt6JLpcBU63u1Gl6IuBDVjPG4wJArb6QrzL73bL2DgBfASm+ZnzWb VzxUJTmlaCIw6FsXAMEMy4L7p+VDHRN4zWBLgh24r2aEuJ5jacUyWRZG3L5MStAT 3QkOCjYpVsGg6QPklfJHbRI0zFv8qZKGP+ab1vOegfObkrcqF1g5y2e+Bigla8MJ llhvJWBtmDJYklhDXZN3oOL66c2JykScHa9qArKb45Xk6wtSdCJGDhbpY2wrLHcc 4SnOd6ZxPQ0M0ON/bL5Fm7BNebT2QQZWTdasHVXMsokV9uW9FKX/BA1VOsuJvvb9 /mmaY1MUAb1S4y1+RoY6nfN9G8RH9S5vujV9F4kWjnH0J3rc66lPMfOnOU1Wckup APaXg2L10sZaQ4Z+a4Gh5a5synWkUJB09q4jBKb90gTUsiN6Erp4GCAZ6PKRbkJ1 Z6jK8yAgrstCi7ctg0QYrH6EGBqigAP13itbBKfOmB0DH010oNY1i9GB9vc1zvSM jpdoCYX1pe4ljeMZXZDiTyGTM5g4TklBsdvwC5PTuvvFKNvU4K8RKg6Zy4FqHq0R bEl63PWSmE3hrMBjrk41qxw/NEs5UgtkPYBl1aWv49+EfIhXMyA= =W/Qn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: DIP Draft Review News
On 04/06/2018 10:39 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
I've dwelt on this for a couple of months now, and keeping thinking on
it myself is not going to help. That's why I'm asking for feedback.
Hum
Changes possible usage syntax, given that the only attribute that does
this currently is @property which people want to remove (as it mostly
does nothing), a pragma might be a better option.
```D
pragma(namedParameters, true):
```
By making it a pragma, it also makes it an override for a future
possible extension (e.g. my DIP with better syntax). So that it becomes
a compiler extension not a language feature.
If no future DIP to extend it happens, a dedicated attribute can be
added instead (like you have).
Changes summarized:
1. Overload resolution does not change
2. Arguments (named names gets erased as far as overload resolution is
concerned)
3. When multiple definitions of a function prototype are found with
types of parameters matching and is not templated then the names will go
into a single definition in the AST for a given scope. These alternative
names can be used for verification with named arguments, but all
arguments names must match a single set of parameter names and cannot be
mixed.
Thought: Couldn't we have alternative names in the parameter instead?
E.g.
```D
void foo(int x/x0/width, int y/y0/height){}
```
This simplifies having to keep whole prototypes around (which can be a
real pain especially with templates that it would otherwise not work for).
4. New calling syntax ``Identifier : ConditionalExpression``
FIXME: fix your DIP to that FYI, ``foo(width:x=7)`` probably isn't what
you want to have supported.
I'll copy this into the PR comments if I haven't misunderstood something
big.
Re: DIP Draft Review News
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 10:30:18 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 04/06/2018 10:05 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:46:04 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
[...]
Not sure what you meant? This definitely does not error out:
https://godbolt.org/g/PAiFPw
```D
@named:
int add(int a, int b);
int add(int b, int a) {
assert(a > 0);
return a + b;
}
void main() {
add(2, 0);
}
```
This shouldn't fail to compile. I think it's made clear in the
DIP, parameter names play no role in overload resolution.
[...]
Care to elaborate why? In this DIP, name prefix on caller side
is optional, caller is allowed to leave out any number of
argument names if they want.
Not all parameters should be used as named arguments. Two
syntax's one purpose isn't desired, which the DIP currently
encourages.
Why is this two syntaxes one purpose?
Personally I want to keep named and unnamed completely separate
and focus more upon public API.
While I'm not keen on 2 and definitely would love for 3, my
first point is what will determine if I vote yes or not
(assuming it gets there). My instincts are saying that it
simply hasn't been thought through enough just yet and that
there will be some real trouble with it.
I've dwelt on this for a couple of months now, and keeping
thinking on it myself is not going to help. That's why I'm asking
for feedback.
Ambiguity is nobody's friend when it comes to programming
language proposals. You have time to think it over, and I could
be very wrong (of course); but other wise as a lite version of
named arguments its not a bad DIP, just maybe we can do better
for D ;)
Re: DIP Draft Review News
On 04/06/2018 10:05 PM, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:46:04 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 04/06/2018 5:01 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
Named arguments lite
I'm concerned about this DIP (keep in mind I wrote a referenced WIP DIP).
1. Reordering of parameters that match (with overloads)
```D
int add(int a, int b);
int add(int b, int a) { ... }
```
This part of the DIP needs quite a bit of filling out and I expect to
have a lot of corner cases.
Are you saying that you have an add that is extern'd or do you mean a
named argument function overload? By conventional wisdom it definitely
should error out.
Not sure what you meant? This definitely does not error out:
https://godbolt.org/g/PAiFPw
```D
@named:
int add(int a, int b);
int add(int b, int a) {
assert(a > 0);
return a + b;
}
void main() {
add(2, 0);
}
```
2. All or nothing.
```D
int add(int x, int y);
@named:
int add(int b, int a) { ... }
```
This is one of the reasons some people /don't/ want named arguments
and have said that they out right would not use a language with it.
Care to elaborate why? In this DIP, name prefix on caller side is
optional, caller is allowed to leave out any number of argument names if
they want.
Not all parameters should be used as named arguments. Two syntax's one
purpose isn't desired, which the DIP currently encourages.
Personally I want to keep named and unnamed completely separate and
focus more upon public API.
While I'm not keen on 2 and definitely would love for 3, my first point
is what will determine if I vote yes or not (assuming it gets there). My
instincts are saying that it simply hasn't been thought through enough
just yet and that there will be some real trouble with it.
Ambiguity is nobody's friend when it comes to programming language
proposals. You have time to think it over, and I could be very wrong (of
course); but other wise as a lite version of named arguments its not a
bad DIP, just maybe we can do better for D ;)
Re: DIP Draft Review News
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:46:04 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 04/06/2018 5:01 PM, Mike Parker wrote:
Named arguments lite
I'm concerned about this DIP (keep in mind I wrote a referenced
WIP DIP).
1. Reordering of parameters that match (with overloads)
```D
int add(int a, int b);
int add(int b, int a) { ... }
```
This part of the DIP needs quite a bit of filling out and I
expect to have a lot of corner cases.
Are you saying that you have an add that is extern'd or do you
mean a named argument function overload? By conventional wisdom
it definitely should error out.
Not sure what you meant? This definitely does not error out:
https://godbolt.org/g/PAiFPw
2. All or nothing.
```D
int add(int x, int y);
@named:
int add(int b, int a) { ... }
```
This is one of the reasons some people /don't/ want named
arguments and have said that they out right would not use a
language with it.
Care to elaborate why? In this DIP, name prefix on caller side is
optional, caller is allowed to leave out any number of argument
names if they want.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 09:38:57 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:50:26 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote: I can think of hundreds of things what can go wrong including: forcing users to use Microsoft accounts, advertising own products, changing search to Bing (that's pretty bad one, no idea how I came up with it) and more and more. Something that might be worth being concerned about is that Microsoft might be more strict in policing its online properties than GitHub, so watch out for them shutting down projects/repositories of politically charged subjects, or those e.g. based on reverse-engineered MS code. GitHub removed repositories before when contents were illegal. That's an interesting question though: now there's nothing stopping MS from changing user agreement and removing repositories without any kind of legal lawsuit. Also, nothing stops MS from making it harder for other big companies like Google and Apple to support and host their projects on the GitHub.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 08:42:08 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/3/2018 8:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote: This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is today). We'll stay on Github as long as it continues to serve our interests, which it has done very well, and I have no reason to believe will change. It's understandable, moving organization this big around is not easy and it shouldn't be done unless it is absolutely needed. We have a number of ties to Microsoft: It's great to know that MS is so nice to D. I guess that's because D isn't something over-hyped and MS might be interested in technologies, not in money or popularity.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
Oh look, rumours are confirmed: https://itsfoss.com/microsoft-github/ MS bought GitHub for $5 billion.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:50:26 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote: I can think of hundreds of things what can go wrong including: forcing users to use Microsoft accounts, advertising own products, changing search to Bing (that's pretty bad one, no idea how I came up with it) and more and more. Something that might be worth being concerned about is that Microsoft might be more strict in policing its online properties than GitHub, so watch out for them shutting down projects/repositories of politically charged subjects, or those e.g. based on reverse-engineered MS code.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 6/3/2018 8:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote: This is still just a rumour, we'll know the truth on Monday (which is today). We'll stay on Github as long as it continues to serve our interests, which it has done very well, and I have no reason to believe will change. We have a number of ties to Microsoft: 1. It's just down the street. 2. Many D users work at Microsoft. 3. Microsoft has always been helpful and supportive of Digital Mars, note the files licensed from Microsoft in the distribution. 4. Microsoft has invited myself and Andrei to speak at Microsoft from time to time. 5. Microsoft hosts the nwcpp.org meetings, which provide a venue for me to try out D presentations to a friendly crowd. 6. Microsoft has been generous with helping me solve some vexing compatibility problems from time to time.
Re: DIP Draft Review News
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 05:46:04 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote: On 04/06/2018 5:01 PM, Mike Parker wrote: Named arguments lite I'm concerned about this DIP (keep in mind I wrote a referenced WIP DIP). The place for this sort of feedback is in the PR comments, not here :-)
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
04.06.2018 09:02, Anton Fediushin пишет: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 04:40:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On the bright side, maybe this will encourage online repo hosting to become less of a monopoly as folks move elsewhere due to their concerns about Microsoft. - Jonathan M Davis Can't agree more: GitLab and Bitbucket deserve more attention. Speaking of which, there's huge spike [1] in project imports on GitLab. These are some great news for it, I hope it doesn't crash. [1] https://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/github-importer?orgId=1 Gitlab has a big (for me) advantage being self hosted standalone system I can use privately. Its free version has restrictions comparing to enterprise version but very usable. What about sexy modern design it's annoying (for me again) that this design changes frequently, it forces me almost every update to find where menus and buttons I used before placed now.
