On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 22:21:40 UTC, welkam wrote:
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 18:52:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
length is getting ridiculous
Having better editor support is nice but by "use better editor"
you meant use vim dont you?
Please keep chatter on the announce forum to
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 08:40:37 UTC, Joakim wrote:
[...]
2.080.1 - 1D 8.0s
2.081.2 - 4D 7.2s
2.082.1 - 27D 6.9s
2.083.0 - 45D 5.6s
master d398d8c - 50D 4.3s
[...]
I think we'll see even more of a gain if the D files in the
backend are built all at once.
Interesting!
On 11/8/2018 9:23 AM, welkam wrote:
And where can i read about naming convention? My guess its not documented
anywhere and would not be in foreseeable future or ever. Also are you sure you
are not talking about two letter variables like
sc for scope
fd for function declaration
td for template
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 18:52:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
length is getting ridiculous
Having better editor support is nice but by "use better editor"
you meant use vim dont you? And even if I switch to vim it wont
solve my initial objection to one letter variable names. Its
needless
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 18:48:05 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 18:38:55 +, welkam wrote:
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 18:15:55 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
One keystroke (well ok, two keys because it's *) ;)
https://dl.dropbox.com/s/mifou0ervwspx5i/vimhl.png
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:38:55PM +, welkam via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 18:15:55 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> >
> > One keystroke (well ok, two keys because it's *) ;)
> > https://dl.dropbox.com/s/mifou0ervwspx5i/vimhl.png
> >
>
> What sorcery is
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 05:50:20PM +, welkam via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 22:08:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > I don't speak for the compiler devs, but IMO, one-letter variables
> > are OK if they are local, and cover a relatively small scope.
>
> By
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 18:38:55 +, welkam wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 18:15:55 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
>>
>> One keystroke (well ok, two keys because it's *) ;)
>> https://dl.dropbox.com/s/mifou0ervwspx5i/vimhl.png
>>
>>
> What sorcery is this? I need to know. I guess its vim
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 18:15:55 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
One keystroke (well ok, two keys because it's *) ;)
https://dl.dropbox.com/s/mifou0ervwspx5i/vimhl.png
What sorcery is this? I need to know. I guess its vim but how
does it highlight symbols?
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:13:55PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
> I guess we have very different ideas on what "small scope" is. For me
> it means around 10 lines. Here's an example in the DMD code base, the
> method for doing the semantic analyze on a call
On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 18:13:55 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I guess we have very different ideas on what "small scope" is. For me it
> means around 10 lines. Here's an example in the DMD code base, the
> method for doing the semantic analyze on a call expression [1]. It's 902
> lines long and has
On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 17:50:20 UTC, welkam wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 22:08:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Now for all of you who think that one letter variables are ok
here is exercise. Go and open src/dmd/func.d with your favorite
code editor. Find function
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 22:08:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I don't speak for the compiler devs, but IMO, one-letter
variables are OK if they are local, and cover a relatively
small scope.
By saying more descriptive I should have clarified that I meant
to change them to 3-7 letter
On 2018-11-08 18:23, welkam wrote:
but you are not against
changing for loops to foreach that add almost nothing to code
readability and only look better.
Changing to a foreach loop definitely adds to readability and to be able
to better understand the code. If you read the "foreach"
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 22:03:20 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Single letter names are appropriate for locally defined
symbols. There's also an informal naming convention for them,
changing the names would disrupt that.
And where can i read about naming convention? My guess its not
On 2018-11-07 23:58, Walter Bright wrote:
Slides and video link:
http://nwcpp.org/october-2018.html
On 11/7/2018 2:08 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I don't speak for the compiler devs, but IMO, one-letter variables are
OK if they are local, and cover a relatively small scope. Java-style
verbosity
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 21:40:58 UTC, welkam wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 14:39:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I don't know why you think that would matter: I'm using the
same compilers to build each DMD version and comparing the
build times as the backend was translated to D
Slides and video link:
http://nwcpp.org/october-2018.html
On 11/7/2018 2:08 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I don't speak for the compiler devs, but IMO, one-letter variables are
OK if they are local, and cover a relatively small scope. Java-style
verbosity IMO makes code *harder* to read because the
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 09:49:41PM +, welkam via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
[...]
> One of biggest and needless hurdle I face in reading DMD code is
> single letter variable name. If I change one letter variable names to
> more descriptive ones would that patch be welcomed or considered
>
On 11/7/2018 1:49 PM, welkam wrote:
One of biggest and needless hurdle I face in reading DMD code is single letter
variable name. If I change one letter variable names to more descriptive ones
would that patch be welcomed or considered needless change?
Sorry, it would not be welcome. Single
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 00:01:13 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/6/2018 3:00 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
What sort of refactoring are we looking at? Any low-hanging
fruit here
that we non-compiler-experts can chip away at?
Simply going with foreach loops is a nice improvement.
Thas
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 14:39:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I don't know why you think that would matter: I'm using the
same compilers to build each DMD version and comparing the
build times as the backend was translated to D
What did you compared is whether clang or DMD compiles code
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 15:12:13 UTC, Dukc wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 14:39:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I don't know why you think that would matter: I'm using the
same compilers to build each DMD version and comparing the
build times as the backend was translated to D.
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 14:39:55 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I don't know why you think that would matter: I'm using the
same compilers to build each DMD version and comparing the
build times as the backend was translated to D.
Because generally, LLVM compilers provide faster code, but
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 11:22:13 UTC, Dukc wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 08:31:21 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I just benchmarked building the last couple versions of DMD,
when most of the backend was converted to D, by building them
with the latest DMD 2.083.0 official release and
On 2018-11-06 23:12, Walter Bright wrote:
The more immediate benefit is to get rid of all the parallel .h files,
which were a constant source of bugs when they didn't match the .d
versions.
Still need some of those for GDC and LDC. Until we have a tool that can
automatically generate them.
On Wednesday, 7 November 2018 at 08:31:21 UTC, Joakim wrote:
I just benchmarked building the last couple versions of DMD,
when most of the backend was converted to D, by building them
with the latest DMD 2.083.0 official release and clang 6.0 in a
single-core linux/x64 VPS. Here are the times
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 22:12:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
With the recent merging of the last of the big files machobj.d:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8911
I'm happy to say we're over the hump in converting the backend
to D!
Great! Although I wish it didn't have to be you
On 11/6/2018 3:00 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
What sort of refactoring are we looking at? Any low-hanging fruit here
that we non-compiler-experts can chip away at?
Simply going with foreach loops is a nice improvement.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 02:12:02PM -0800, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> With the recent merging of the last of the big files machobj.d:
>
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8911
>
> I'm happy to say we're over the hump in converting the backend to D!
>
> Remaining files
30 matches
Mail list logo
