On 20 October 2013 07:06, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 October 2013 21:29, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Oct 18, 2013 7:45 PM, "Andrei Alexandrescu" >> <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: >> > >> > Walter scrambled to implement UDAs in a rush and breaking protocol in >> > order to win a corporate D user, Remedy Games. It was a major, exceptional >> > event. Would you have preferred the protocol to have been followed at the >> > cost of Remedy? >> > >> >> I would have preferred Remedy working with the community, rather than >> talking behind closed doors to those who concern only them. And I say this >> as someone who was part involved before UDAs and the public announcement >> came into the picture. > > Surely you can appreciate that we weren't ready for it to be made public > information. We didn't really have much choice. There's always company > bureaucracy to deal with. >
I can partly understand, and I never felt inclined to push them through the proper channels when I received in personal emails from staff. For me, if I use a product/project and like a product/project, I want to get involved in with the product/project. But I suppose not everyone in a games dev company wants to chip in with aiding development of a library/toolchain when they've got a deadline on a game to finish first... >> What I did find interesting, in reflection at dconf, was that Manu >> countered all arguments (that I could recall) Walter made to keeping the >> deprecation in place. > > I had no idea about the deprecation of the original syntax. I don't recall > ever being a party to any discussion on that matter. The community clearly > voted for @attribute syntax, and as soon as it was done, I switched all our > code over. > I wasn't personally precious about which way the syntax went. We just needed > the feature, and it seems to have been successfully used by many others > since us too, so I really hope most people agree it was a valuable addition, > despite materialising fairly abruptly. > It's also not like I was the first to come up with it either, people had > been talking about attributes for years, I just gave it a nudge. > If we were the only people that *ever* used the initial (experimental) > C#-style [attribute] syntax, then it should be removed and put an end to > this criticism, since I changed our code over within minutes of the new > syntax being made available :) > There's probably no D code anywhere that uses the original C#-style syntax. That was near enough exactly the answer to the question I recall from dconf. :o) The question being on how true Walter was in saying that whoever was using the C#-style syntax had a large codebase, and change-over was not simple for them. However it is entirely possible that he was referring to another company other than Remedy. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';