On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:59:08 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
If you work with kids teaching them to read phonetically (rather than
look-say), you'll discover that by and large, the phonetic rules work
very well. They'll pronounce about 80% of the unfamiliar words
reasonably correctly.
I
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:gpc2ik$2t8...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
That's one thing that's kind of nice about Japanese. Native words and
loanwords are written in different alphabets (sort of like uppercase vs
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:gpbpib$2ee...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
What do you mean with pseudo-phonetic?
How do you pronounce the first letter of I? And the first letter of
Incredible? That doesn't seem to have any
Don, el 10 de marzo a las 06:43 me escribiste:
To quote Richard Stallman:
--
However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is
“You can look at the source code,” and most people seem to think that's what
it means. That is a much weaker criterion than free
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is a very ambiguous term too (many people think of free as
in no charge).
Unfortunately English is a very crappy language ;)
I think with the absurd preponderance of FLOSS proponents saying free
as in
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Unfortunately English is a very crappy language ;)
I think it's a great language, it's just completely unsuitable for
computers, which is why we invent computer languages!
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:gpbmma$29l...@digitalmars.com...
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Unfortunately English is a very crappy language ;)
I think it's a great language, it's just...
I dunno, I'm convinced that if English weren't my native language I'd have
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:gpbmma$29l...@digitalmars.com...
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Unfortunately English is a very crappy language ;)
I think it's a great language, it's just...
I dunno, I'm convinced that if English weren't my
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
How do you pronounce the first letter of I? And the first letter of
Incredible? That doesn't seem to have any logic! :-P
If you work with kids teaching them to read phonetically (rather than
look-say), you'll discover that by and large, the phonetic rules work
very
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is a very ambiguous term too (many people think of free as
in no charge).
Unfortunately English is a very crappy language ;)
It's a great ball of mud. Fascinating and
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:01:04 +0300, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Free Software is a very ambiguous term too (many people think of
free as
in no charge).
Unfortunately English is a very
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:gpbpib$2ee...@digitalmars.com...
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
What do you mean with pseudo-phonetic?
How do you pronounce the first letter of I? And the first letter of
Incredible? That doesn't seem to have any logic! :-P
Yea,
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
I think with the absurd preponderance of FLOSS proponents saying free
as in freedom! the term free software really cannot be interpreted
as anything *but* FLOSS anymore. Frankly I'm sick of hearing free as
in freedom! and libre! all the goddamn time, I know what is
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:gpc2ik$2t8...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
That's one thing that's kind of nice about Japanese. Native words and
loanwords are written in different alphabets (sort of like uppercase vs
lowercase), so unlike English,
Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote in message
news:gpc4m6$30n...@digitalmars.com...
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:gpc2ik$2t8...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
That's one thing that's kind of nice about Japanese. Native words and
loanwords are written
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote:
Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote in message
news:gpc4m6$30n...@digitalmars.com...
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:gpc2ik$2t8...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
That's one thing that's kind
Bill Baxter escribió:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote:
Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote in message
news:gpc4m6$30n...@digitalmars.com...
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:gpc2ik$2t8...@digitalmars.com...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
That's
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Ary Borenszweig a...@esperanto.org.ar wrote:
In the company I work we just finished building a website, chose a name for
it, and we still don't know how it is pronounced in English. We only have
suppositions. :-P
NAY-un or NAY-oon would be by guess.
Jarrett Billingsley, el 12 de marzo a las 14:09 me escribiste:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is a very ambiguous term too (many people think of free as
in no charge).
Unfortunately English is a very crappy language ;)
I
Don, el 12 de marzo a las 21:01 me escribiste:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Leandro Lucarella llu...@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is a very ambiguous term too (many people think of free as
in no charge).
Unfortunately English is a very crappy language ;)
Jeff Nowakowski, el 12 de marzo a las 17:48 me escribiste:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
I think with the absurd preponderance of FLOSS proponents saying free
as in freedom! the term free software really cannot be interpreted
as anything *but* FLOSS anymore. Frankly I'm sick of hearing free as
Gregor Richards wrote:
I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the
term is NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in fact
trademarked, and using it to describe software that does not fit the
Open Source Definition is in violation of the trademark.
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:got0ff$28r...@digitalmars.com...
== Quote from grauzone (n...@example.net)'s article
String mixins are awful in the first place. The only thing that could
save this kind of thing are AST macros.
Both Murphey's law and the
Don, el 8 de marzo a las 07:39 me escribiste:
Gregor Richards wrote:
I sort of hate to throw myself into the fray, especially since my studies
have
kept me more-or-less detached from D entirely, but ...
I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the term
is
NOT
Sure, they're open to _severe_ abuse, but for the case when they are
used to generate source code (eg, from a DSL), they are absolutely
perfect, and not a hack at all. In that particular scenario, they are
much better than AST macros could ever be.
They're a replacement for creating a text
Don wrote:
They're a replacement for creating a text file, adding a line to your
makefile in order to invoke a program to read the text file and spit out
a d source file, then add another line in the makefile to compile that d
file, then link it in, and try to integrate the whole thing
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Don, el 8 de marzo a las 07:39 me escribiste:
Gregor Richards wrote:
I sort of hate to throw myself into the fray, especially since my studies have
kept me more-or-less detached from D entirely, but ...
I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source.
Daniel Keep wrote:
As for the IDE issue, I'm increasingly of the opinion that this is a
shortcoming of IDEs. For example, I've never seen an IDE that got
script in HTML right.
Netbeans 6.5
Björn
Walter Bright wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Provided that they aren't as crappy as the ones in C, bitfields can be
immensely useful for anything really low-level, like embedded systems,
drivers, firmware, or packed data formats for network or file I/O (ie,
systems programming stuff). Anything
Charles Hixson wrote:
Perhaps there just *ISN'T* a good way to do templates mixins. The
syntaxes that I have encountered previously, including D's, have caused
me to avoid all but the simplest cases of using them. I admit that they
appear quite powerful (not really using them I can't say
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
One improvement from the language could come from dropping the parens
requirement for mixin, in which case:
mixin bitfields!
uint x : 2,
int y : 3,
uint z : 2,
bool flag : 1,
;
Have to resolve the ambiguity with template mixins
Gregor Richards wrote:
I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the
term is NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in fact
trademarked, and using it to describe software that does not fit the
Open Source Definition is in violation of the trademark. But
Walter Bright wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Georg Wrede wrote:
Like a can opener. You can live weeks without needing one, but when
you've got a can, it's not nice to open it with the kitchen knife.
Creating a can opener on your own is not as trivial as re-implementing
bitfields.
Using a table
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
One improvement from the language could come from dropping the parens
requirement for mixin, in which case:
mixin bitfields!
uint x : 2,
int y : 3,
uint z : 2,
bool flag : 1,
;
Have to resolve the
Charles Hixson escribió:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-03-06 14:35:59 -0500, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the
Earth!
Here they are, std.bitmanip.
Daniel Keep wrote:
I use mixins with CTFE functions WAY MORE than I use them with templates.
I'm not surprised. I feel the template mixins were probably a mistake.
Walter Bright Wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
I use mixins with CTFE functions WAY MORE than I use them with templates.
I'm not surprised. I feel the template mixins were probably a mistake.
I like template mixins and use them. I don't use them much, but they are very
useful for events
Walter Bright wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
I use mixins with CTFE functions WAY MORE than I use them with templates.
I'm not surprised. I feel the template mixins were probably a mistake.
Well, there's really a few things at play here:
1. I use templates for simple forward code generation
Frits van Bommel wrote:
Georg Wrede wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:51:57 +0300, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
[snip]
The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some
sweat equity in it.
Gregor Richards wrote:
I sort of hate to throw myself into the fray, especially since my
studies have kept me more-or-less detached from D entirely, but ...
I realize people are going to misuse the term Open Source. However, the
term is NOT generic, and DOES have a specific meaning; it is in
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:51:57 +0300, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
wrote:
[snip]
The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some sweat
equity in it.
http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/539369-138652
Don wrote:
BTW, I think it's legal to distribute patches. As long as
digitalmars.com stays online, you can distribute an updated compiler,
just by telling everyone to download the code from digitalmars, then
apply the patches.
Yes, that would be perfectly legal as I understand it.
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:51:57 +0300, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
[snip]
The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some
sweat equity in it.
http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/539369-138652
g
Walter Bright wrote:
Sean Kelly wrote:
Seems kind of silly to me. The big deal with the full source for DMD
being available is that if DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke
tomorrow, customers have a means of preserving their investment in the
language. This can be a big deal for
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the Earth!
Here they are, std.bitmanip. Well-defined and more portable and
flexible than C's.
Meh, don't like the definition syntax.
Now, now. There. Don't cry. ;-)
They might be an unglamorous
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Michel Fortin escribió:
On 2009-03-06 14:35:59 -0500, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the
Earth!
Here they are, std.bitmanip. Well-defined and more portable and
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-03-06 14:35:59 -0500, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com
said:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Can't live without bitfields! Give me bitfields and I'll lift the
Earth!
Here they are, std.bitmanip. Well-defined and more portable and
flexible than C's.
Meh,
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:25:04 +0100, grauzone wrote:
hasen wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/
digitalmars_d_now_open_source/
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/
new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/
Wow there's a big
Georg Wrede wrote:
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:51:57 +0300, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
[snip]
The ones I listen to are the ones who *are* using D and have some
sweat equity in it.
http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/539369-138652
Bipolar folks
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Provided that they aren't as crappy as the ones in C, bitfields can be
immensely useful for anything really low-level, like embedded systems,
drivers, firmware, or packed data formats for network or file I/O (ie,
systems programming stuff). Anything higher-level then
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/
grauzone wrote:
To us, this doesn't really matter. The important thing is that we can
build the compiler itself, and can debug it if it craps up (which
happens often, sorry Walter). For example, now we might be able to find
out on which piece of code exactly it segfaults when compiling. Oh,
hasen wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/
Wow there's a big fuss over there about it not being /really/ open source,
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org wrote:
hasen wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82ck4/digitalmars_d_now_open_source/
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/82cgp/new_release_of_the_d_programming_language_now/
Sean Kelly wrote:
The big deal with the full source for DMD being available is that if
DigitalMars disappears in a puff of smoke tomorrow, customers have a
means of preserving their investment in the language.
I just hope Walter survives!
55 matches
Mail list logo
