Re: It makes me sick!
On Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 21:52:38 UTC, FoxyBrown wrote: On Saturday, 29 July 2017 at 21:48:09 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote: On 28.07.2017 23:30, FoxyBrown wrote: because you didn't want to spend 10 minutes to fix a program. You need to realize that the same thing applies to you. There is no "us" vs "you". I.e. if you know it to only be 10 minutes of work, why don't you just fix it yourself? Mike currently has as many commits in DMD as you do, and he is already busy contributing in other ways. EXACTLY! Your problem is that you are taking the you vs me too literal. I am talking about a mentality people have that think that them saving 10 minutes by not implementing something that will save 10 hours(low estimate) for everyone else is a good thing and criticize people when they say there is a better and try to condemn them and continue the status quo that wastes more time. You should probably start to think about the real reason behind all this. The thing you complain about is DMD being flexible, like any other compiler is too. Try blundering around with the 'include' folder of your favorite C compiler, but don't blame me if nothing works any any more, because your compiler uses that directory as-is as its include directory and does not have an internal whitelist of the files to expect there. The next question is, would like DMD to require a whitelist for every single include directory, which means forcing each dev to write or generate a file list of his library directories?
Re: It makes me sick!
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 22:32:27 UTC, FoxyBrown wrote: On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 21:35:01 UTC, Anonymouse wrote: [...] YES! EXACTLY! I AM EXPECTING THE SOFTWARE, WHICH IS WHAT THE PROGRAMMER CREATED AND HANDLES THE FILES TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE HELL IT IS DOING! [...] The software actually knows what it does: loading/including all files from its library directory. If you place your own pictures into a text processing program's clipart directory, you shouldn't complain about finding them listed as cliparts either. I'm sorry if that is too complex to understand. If the software has some build in design that makes it use arbitrary files in a specific way like it does with std.datetime, then it should have sanity checks. [...] Seems like the DMD zip should contain a notice like this: "Extract into an empty directory."
Re: It makes me sick!
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 12:40:27 UTC, rjframe wrote: On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 05:14:16 +, FoxyBrown wrote: You can make any claim you want like: "The end user should install in to a clean dir so that DMD doesn't get confused and load a module that doesn't actually have any implementation" but that's just your opinion. I have never seen extracting into the directory as a supported upgrade path for anything except the simplest of applications and a few PHP projects that supply a migration script. Well, any other installer would have done the required cleanup in such a case.
Re: It makes me sick!
On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 05:14:16 UTC, FoxyBrown wrote: On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 01:10:03 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: [...] Nope, your unreasonable expecting the end user to clean up the mess "you" leave. [...] Nope. Virtually all apps, at least on windows, work fine if you replace their contents with new versions. Generally, only generated files such as settings and such could break the apps... but this is not the problem here. If dmd breaks in strange and unpredictable ways IT IS DMD's fault! No exceptions, no matter what you believe, what you say, what lawyer you pay to create a law for you to make you think you are legally correct! You can make any claim you want like: "The end user should install in to a clean dir so that DMD doesn't get confused and load a module that doesn't actually have any implementation" but that's just your opinion. At the end of the day it only makes you and dmd look bad when it doesn't work because of some lame minor issue that could be easily fixed. It suggests laziness["Oh, there's a fix but I'm too lazy to add it"], arrogance["Oh, it's the end users fault, let them deal with it"], and a bit of ignorance. In the long run, mentalities like yours are hurting D rather than helping it. Sure, you might contribute significantly to D's infrastructure, but if no one uses because there are so many "insignificant" issues then you've just wasted an significant portion of your life for absolutely nothing. So, I'd suggest you rethink your position and the nearsighted rhetoric that you use. You can keep the mentality of kicking the can down the road and blaming the end user but it will ultimately get you no where. @FoxyBrown You make the small but crucial mistake of thinking anything in D has been made for the user's sake. In fact, nothing has even been made to be used by a developer. Actually, D is a programming language for tinkerers, people with too much time and botchers. Should any of my statements above against all expectations not be right, then something in the design of D went, more or less, very terribly wrong ...
