Jarrett Billingsley wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Brad Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jarrett Billingsley wrote: >>> It's not like the DMDFE can get any _worse_. >> I try to avoid responding to you for the most part, but when you make > > Wow, I wasn't aware you had this kind of disdain for me. I'd be > interested to know why. Yeah, I know, as you're reading this you're > palming your forehead and going "wow! how can he be so oblivious!" > But no, seriously.
I overstated it, but mostly to drive home the point. It's primarily the level of negativity you show on most threads that mention compiler bugs. You just can't seem to help but exaggerate and use antagonistic phrasing. >> statements that are so obviously uncalled for and egregiously rude, I >> can't help it. >> >> This is over the top out of line, imho. > > My comment was not really meant to provoke, but I suppose that it > could be taken that way, and for that I apologize. How in the world can a statement like that NOT be taken that way? DMD is obviously a very usable compiler. It could get a hell of a lot worse. > The point I'd've liked to have made is that yes - Walter has > (obviously!) done a lot for D. Without him, D would not exist. But > the fact is - and I doubt you'll find many who will disagree with me - > it doesn't matter how awesome Walter is, or how much of a visionary he > is, or how good his managerial skills are; DMDFE is just buggy, no > offense meant to Walter as a person. That there are 30 new bugs > posted to the bugzilla every month from a relatively small group of > users is testament that DMDFE is buggy. And the current development > model of "have people put things in bugzilla where there is a very > good chance that they will never get fixed" and "be extremely > skeptical of any and all patches that people submit" does not work. > As I said - simple flow problem. 30 in, 15 out. Eventually the tank > is going to overflow. Depends on your definition of buggy. If it's the extreme of "there is at least one known / unfixed bug" then yes, it's buggy. But so is every other compiler produced for every other language out there. Hardly a useful definition. As to "have people put things in bugzilla where there is a very good chance that they will never get fixed".. what do you suggest people do? Keep them to themselves and hope they get fixed? Hope someone else stumbles into the same bug and files it for them? Those are certainly good ways of dealing with them (dripping sarcasm, yes). I won't try to speak for why bugs with patches haven't all been resolved, since I have no extra insight into Walter's brain. I to wish they'd get more attention due to the symbiotic relationship they build. So.. seemed like it might be interesting to pull some stats from bugzilla. For all of the below, the data is restricted to bugs filed for the product 'D' (leaving out dgcc, dmc, dstress, puremagic.com, and testproduct). Filed means any status. Resolved means status is resolved, verified, or closed. Open means status is unconfirmed, new, assigned, or reopened. An important point before getting into the actual numbers. Raw numbers are just that.. raw. Not all bugs are of equal weight. The fact that there are open bugs is NOT a sign of anything other than that there open issues. It doesn't provide any way to judge the usability or quality of the code upon which the bugs have been reported. There's _some_ qualitative measure based on severity, but as this field isn't terribly actively/accurately maintained in d's bugzilla, it's risky to use it though I did break out the stats for that a little in the numbers below. Per month for all versions: jan 2008: 54 filed, of which 30 are resolved feb 2008: 65 filed, of which 37 are resolved mar 2008: 70 filed, of which 15 are resolved apr 2008: 87 filed, of which 28 are resolved may 2008: 68 filed, of which 33 are resolved jun 2008: 47 filed, of which 18 are resolved jul 2008: 67 filed, of which 25 are resolved aug 2008: 62 filed, of which 28 are resolved sep 2008: 55 filed, of which 22 are resolved oct 2008: 52 filed, of which 8 are resolved nov 2008: 12 filed, of which 1 is resolved Some 0.x and 1.x combined stats: 390 open prior to 2008 908 resolved prior to 2008 137 open for 2008 99 resolved for 2008 ----- 527 of 1534 bugs still open. That's just over 34% open vs 66% resolved. That's a far cry from "there is a very good chance that they will never get fixed". Even if you look at just 2008's percentages, 58% open vs 42% resolved. Not as good, but still not super bleak. Some 2.x stats: 75 opened 2.x bugs prior to 2008 75 resolved 2.x bugs prior to 2008 215 opened 2.x bugs during 2008 111 resolved 2.x bugs during 2008 ----- 290 of 476 bugs still open. That's just shy of 61% open vs 39% resolved. Taking a look at the stats for the bugs with severity regression, blocker, or critical: 30 (24%) open 0.x/1.x 94 (76%) resolve 0.x/1.x 15 (33%) open 2.x 30 (67%) resolved 2.x Bugs with patches attached and marked as patches: 10 (26%) open 0.x/1.x 29 (74%) resolved 0.x/1.x 8 (67%) open 2.x 4 (33%) resolved 2.x There's 239 filed issues that don't specify a version. Of those, 118 (49%) are open and 121 (51%) resolved. So not wildly different from the above data. Well, enough searching of bugzilla for tonight. Later, Brad