Re: D is dead (was: Dicebot on leaving D: It is anarchy driven development in all its glory.)
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 06:58:13 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 22/08/18 21:34, Ali wrote: On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 17:42:56 UTC, Joakim wrote: Pretty positive overall, and the negatives he mentions are fairly obvious to anyone paying attention. Yea, I agree, the negatives are not really negative Walter not matter how smart he is, he is one man who can work on the so many things at the same time Its a chicken and egg situation, D needs more core contributors, and to get more contributors it needs more users, and to get more users it need more core contributors No, no and no. I was holding out on replying to this thread to see how the community would react. The vibe I'm getting, however, is that the people who are seeing D's problems have given up on affecting change. It is no secret that when I joined Weka, I was a sole D detractor among a company quite enamored with the language. I used to have quite heated water cooler debates about that point of view. Every single one of the people rushing to defend D at the time has since come around. There is still some debate on whether, points vs. counter points, choosing D was a good idea, but the overwhelming consensus inside Weka today is that D has *fatal* flaws and no path to fixing them. And by "fatal", I mean literally flaws that are likely to literally kill the language. And the thing that brought them around is not my power of persuasion. The thing that brought them around was spending a couple of years working with the language on an every-day basis. And you will notice this in the way Weka employees talk on this forum: except me, they all disappeared. You used to see Idan, Tomer and Eyal post here. Where are they? This forum is hostile to criticism, and generally tries to keep everyone using D the same way. If you're cutting edge D, the forum is almost no help at all. Consensus among former posters here is that it is generally a waste of time, so almost everyone left, and those who didn't, stopped posting. And it's not just Weka. I've had a chance to talk in private to some other developers. Quite a lot have serious, fundamental issues with the language. You will notice none of them speaks up on this thread. They don't see the point. No technical project is born great. If you want a technical project to be great, the people working on it have to focus on its *flaws*. The D's community just doesn't do that. To sum it up: fatal flaws + no path to fixing + no push from the community = inevitable eventual death. Can you list what you or other Weka devs believe those fatal flaws to be? Because you've not listed any here, which makes you no better than some noob that comes in here, says D has to get better or it will die, then can't articulate what they mean by "better" or worse, mentions something trivial. Of course, you've actually used the language for years, so presumably you've got some real concerns, but do you really think the bug you just posted is "fatal" to the language? If you think there are fatal flaws, you might as well list them, whether technical or the development process, or you will just be ignored like any other noob who talks big and can't back it up. You may be ignored anyway, ;) but at least you'll have made a case that shows you know what you're talking about. I'd define fatal as some that can be fixed, but breaks 100% of everyone's code, even if the change is net positive all round. However how big a problem really is is in the eye of the beholder. An example: Symptom: The compiler can't discard unused symbols at compile time, and so it will spend a lot of time pointlessly optimising code. Problem: D has no notion of symbol visibility. Possible Solution: Make all globals hidden by default unless 'export'. Side effects: Everyone will be spending weeks to months fixing their libraries in order to only mark what should be visible outside the current compilation unit as 'export'. Benefits: Faster compile times, as in, in the most extreme example I've built one project on github with gdc -O2 and build time went from 120 seconds to just 3! Iain.
Re: D is dead
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 06:34:01 UTC, nkm1 wrote: The only real problem with D is that it's a language designed with GC in mind, yet there are numerous attempts to use it without GC. Also, supporting GC-less programming gets in the way of improving D's GC (which is pretty damn bad by modern standards). That's the only real technical problem. I think a large part is defining what kind of users D wants to attract. There are two main groups of programmers, and there is a vast rift between those groups. One group is people who are closer to OOP programming and languages such as Java, C#, Javascript. These people are OK with things like garbage collectors and in cases where it matters, have learned to work around it (avoid allocations in hot loops, etc.). I feel like D1 was attractive for these people for having the convenience they are used to from their languages (batteries included standard library, automatic memory management), with additional features that their language/environments struggle with (C interop, native binaries), everything packed with a very clean syntax. The second group are the C/C++ programmers, the 'zero cost abstraction' group. For this group of programmers, any overhead is a disadvantage, garbage collector is unusable for most usecases (whether true or not, that's the perception). D1 appealed to those people, for having a clean syntax and the features they know without having to include the monster that is Boost. Battlefield was different back then too. Around D2 came the competition, be it Rust, Go, or C++17. Go is appealing more to the first group of programmers, since it has a GC, and mostly sticks to webservice usage. Rust is heavily appealing to the zero-cost abstraction group and C++17 obviously appeals to C++ folks. Is it possible to make a language that both groups would be happy to use? Perhaps, or perhaps the gap is too wide. Is adding features like dip1000 and betterC spreading ourselves too thin? Perhaps. Perhaps there are features that aren't really used, and should be reworked or cut from the language instead (has anyone ever used contracts?). D's not UNIX (DNU?), but the first rule of UNIX philosophy is "Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new 'features'.". It may or may not be relevant here. BTW. on the offtopic note - the thread title doesn't look too good. Imagine being a newcomer, and the first thread you see on the forum is titled "D is dead".
Re: D is dead
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 06:34:04 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 23/08/18 09:17, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 05:37:12 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: One that hurt me lately was a way to pass a scoped lazy argument (i.e. - to specify that the implicit delegate need not allocate its frame, because it is not used outside the function call). I don't see why we just can't add support for scoped lazy parameters. It's already in the language just with a different syntax (delegates). That would probably be an easy fix (last famous words :)). I guess it would be better if it could be inferred. -- /Jacob Carlborg Here's the interesting question, though: is this *going* to happen? We've known about this problem for ages now. No movement. It's on my todo list, however I've instead been doomed to work on higher priority things. More generally though, some time should be spent on trying out things in the spirit of "will it blend" just to see what happens. Putting effort towards having a more homogeneous environment in the language should in the long run pay its dividends. Some of the other problems are considerably less easy to fix. Examples: A struct may be @disabled this(this), @disable this() and/or @disable init. Can you say that libraries.. Actually, strike that. Can you say that the *standard* libraries work with all 8 combinations? The same goes for using shared, immutable and const against the standard library. Iain
Re: D is dead (was: Dicebot on leaving D: It is anarchy driven development in all its glory.)
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: On 22/08/18 21:34, Ali wrote: On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 17:42:56 UTC, Joakim wrote: Pretty positive overall, and the negatives he mentions are fairly obvious to anyone paying attention. Yea, I agree, the negatives are not really negative Walter not matter how smart he is, he is one man who can work on the so many things at the same time Its a chicken and egg situation, D needs more core contributors, and to get more contributors it needs more users, and to get more users it need more core contributors No, no and no. I was holding out on replying to this thread to see how the community would react. The vibe I'm getting, however, is that the people who are seeing D's problems have given up on affecting change. It is no secret that when I joined Weka, I was a sole D detractor among a company quite enamored with the language. I used to have quite heated water cooler debates about that point of view. Every single one of the people rushing to defend D at the time has since come around. There is still some debate on whether, points vs. counter points, choosing D was a good idea, but the overwhelming consensus inside Weka today is that D has *fatal* flaws and no path to fixing them. And by "fatal", I mean literally flaws that are likely to literally kill the language. And the thing that brought them around is not my power of persuasion. The thing that brought them around was spending a couple of years working with the language on an every-day basis. And you will notice this in the way Weka employees talk on this forum: except me, they all disappeared. You used to see Idan, Tomer and Eyal post here. Where are they? This forum is hostile to criticism, and generally tries to keep everyone using D the same way. If you're cutting edge D, the forum is almost no help at all. Consensus among former posters here is that it is generally a waste of time, so almost everyone left, and those who didn't, stopped posting. And it's not just Weka. I've had a chance to talk in private to some other developers. Quite a lot have serious, fundamental issues with the language. You will notice none of them speaks up on this thread. They don't see the point. No technical project is born great. If you want a technical project to be great, the people working on it have to focus on its *flaws*. The D's community just doesn't do that. To sum it up: fatal flaws + no path to fixing + no push from the community = inevitable eventual death. Can you list what you or other Weka devs believe those fatal flaws to be? Because you've not listed any here, which makes you no better than some noob that comes in here, says D has to get better or it will die, then can't articulate what they mean by "better" or worse, mentions something trivial. Of course, you've actually used the language for years, so presumably you've got some real concerns, but do you really think the bug you just posted is "fatal" to the language? If you think there are fatal flaws, you might as well list them, whether technical or the development process, or you will just be ignored like any other noob who talks big and can't back it up. You may be ignored anyway, ;) but at least you'll have made a case that shows you know what you're talking about.
Re: D is dead
On 23/08/18 09:17, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 05:37:12 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: One that hurt me lately was a way to pass a scoped lazy argument (i.e. - to specify that the implicit delegate need not allocate its frame, because it is not used outside the function call). I don't see why we just can't add support for scoped lazy parameters. It's already in the language just with a different syntax (delegates). That would probably be an easy fix (last famous words :)). I guess it would be better if it could be inferred. -- /Jacob Carlborg Here's the interesting question, though: is this *going* to happen? We've known about this problem for ages now. No movement. Some of the other problems are considerably less easy to fix. Examples: A struct may be @disabled this(this), @disable this() and/or @disable init. Can you say that libraries.. Actually, strike that. Can you say that the *standard* libraries work with all 8 combinations? Shachar
Re: D is dead
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 05:37:12 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Let's start with this one: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14246#c6 The problems I'm talking about are not easily fixable. They stem from features not playing well together. One that hurt me lately was a way to pass a scoped lazy argument (i.e. - to specify that the implicit delegate need not allocate its frame, because it is not used outside the function call). The only real problem with D is that it's a language designed with GC in mind, yet there are numerous attempts to use it without GC. Also, supporting GC-less programming gets in the way of improving D's GC (which is pretty damn bad by modern standards). That's the only real technical problem. For example, the "bug" above just means that D doesn't support RAII (in the C++ sense). That's hardly a *fatal flaw*. Lots of languages don't support RAII. Python, Java, C# - tons of code were written in those. And yes, most of those just use GC to dispose of memory - other resources are rarely used (compared to memory) and it's not a problem to manage them manually. You also mentioned lazy parameters allocating... GC thing again. Just allocate then? No? IMO, if getting the maximum number of users is the main goal, D is indeed going the wrong way. It would be better to get rid of @nogc, betterC, dip1000, implement write barriers and use them to improve GC. Martin Nowak (I think) mentioned that write barriers will decrease performance of D programs by 1-5%. Seems like a small price to pay for better GC with shorter pauses. It would also probably be simpler technically than stuff like dip1000 and rewriting Phobos. Of course, maximizing the number of users is not the only goal, or even the main one. My understanding is that Walter wants a "systems language" with "zero cost abstractions". Well, it's very well possible that D's design precludes that. Other than memory management, I don't see any real fundamental problems.
Re: D is dead
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 05:37:12 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: One that hurt me lately was a way to pass a scoped lazy argument (i.e. - to specify that the implicit delegate need not allocate its frame, because it is not used outside the function call). I don't see why we just can't add support for scoped lazy parameters. It's already in the language just with a different syntax (delegates). That would probably be an easy fix (last famous words :)). I guess it would be better if it could be inferred. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: D is dead
On 23/08/18 09:04, Mike Franklin wrote: On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: And it's not just Weka. I've had a chance to talk in private to some other developers. Quite a lot have serious, fundamental issues with the language. You will notice none of them speaks up on this thread. They don't see the point. No technical project is born great. If you want a technical project to be great, the people working on it have to focus on its *flaws*. The D's community just doesn't do that. To sum it up: fatal flaws + no path to fixing + no push from the community = inevitable eventual death. The D Foundation has an Open Collective page (https://opencollective.com/dlang) with a $12,000 annual "Corporate Bronze" option that includes 3 priority bug fixes per month. Is that not a worthwhile investment for Weka or other organizations invested in D to help address some of the problems you're encountering? If not, is there an option that would be? I will definitely pass it on. Shachar
Re: D is dead (was: Dicebot on leaving D: It is anarchy driven development in all its glory.)
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: And it's not just Weka. I've had a chance to talk in private to some other developers. Quite a lot have serious, fundamental issues with the language. You will notice none of them speaks up on this thread. They don't see the point. No technical project is born great. If you want a technical project to be great, the people working on it have to focus on its *flaws*. The D's community just doesn't do that. To sum it up: fatal flaws + no path to fixing + no push from the community = inevitable eventual death. The D Foundation has an Open Collective page (https://opencollective.com/dlang) with a $12,000 annual "Corporate Bronze" option that includes 3 priority bug fixes per month. Is that not a worthwhile investment for Weka or other organizations invested in D to help address some of the problems you're encountering? If not, is there an option that would be? Mike
Re: D is dead
On 23/08/18 08:20, Nicholas Wilson wrote: On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: No, no and no. I was holding out on replying to this thread to see how the community would react. The vibe I'm getting, however, is that the people who are seeing D's problems have given up on affecting change. It is no secret that when I joined Weka, I was a sole D detractor among a company quite enamored with the language. I used to have quite heated water cooler debates about that point of view. Every single one of the people rushing to defend D at the time has since come around. There is still some debate on whether, points vs. counter points, choosing D was a good idea, but the overwhelming consensus inside Weka today is that D has *fatal* flaws and no path to fixing them. A list, please? Now that I actually have time to fix things, I intend to do so. Let's start with this one: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14246#c6 The problems I'm talking about are not easily fixable. They stem from features not playing well together. One that hurt me lately was a way to pass a scoped lazy argument (i.e. - to specify that the implicit delegate need not allocate its frame, because it is not used outside the function call). Shachar
Re: D is dead (was: Dicebot on leaving D: It is anarchy driven development in all its glory.)
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: No, no and no. I was holding out on replying to this thread to see how the community would react. The vibe I'm getting, however, is that the people who are seeing D's problems have given up on affecting change. It is no secret that when I joined Weka, I was a sole D detractor among a company quite enamored with the language. I used to have quite heated water cooler debates about that point of view. Every single one of the people rushing to defend D at the time has since come around. There is still some debate on whether, points vs. counter points, choosing D was a good idea, but the overwhelming consensus inside Weka today is that D has *fatal* flaws and no path to fixing them. A list, please? Now that I actually have time to fix things, I intend to do so. And by "fatal", I mean literally flaws that are likely to literally kill the language. And the thing that brought them around is not my power of persuasion. The thing that brought them around was spending a couple of years working with the language on an every-day basis. And you will notice this in the way Weka employees talk on this forum: except me, they all disappeared. You used to see Idan, Tomer and Eyal post here. Where are they? This forum is hostile to criticism, and generally tries to keep everyone using D the same way. If you're cutting edge D, the forum is almost no help at all. Consensus among former posters here is that it is generally a waste of time, so almost everyone left, and those who didn't, stopped posting. And it's not just Weka. I've had a chance to talk in private to some other developers. Quite a lot have serious, fundamental issues with the language. You will notice none of them speaks up on this thread. They don't see the point. That reminds me, what happened to our conversation with Ali Çehreli about splitting general into Technical and less technical? Not to imply that the problems listed are purely technical. There is a distinct lack of well documented direction beyond incremental improvements. No technical project is born great. If you want a technical project to be great, the people working on it have to focus on its *flaws*. The D's community just doesn't do that. To sum it up: fatal flaws + no path to fixing + no push from the community = inevitable eventual death. With great regrets, Shachar Indeed. It is time to push, then. Nic
Re: D is dead
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 04:59:47 UTC, Dukc wrote: On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 04:44:47 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: But, again, it is interesting to see what you took from my mail. I think the biggest problem is lack of reviewers when making PR:s. The fact that we have D language foundation, state of D survey, extensive autotester and regular release schelude seem to imply, for me, that much more than ADD is being done. But then again, my D projects so far are too small that I could really know where the problems are. It may be that in time, if they grow, I start to agree with you. JinShil referenced in another thread a PR where Walter and Andrei just ignored the review and merged the pull request (I had to laugh). A valid merge-stopper (missing/wrong documentation) was called "bureaucracy". https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/8346
Re: D is dead
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 04:44:47 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: But, again, it is interesting to see what you took from my mail. I think the biggest problem is lack of reviewers when making PR:s. The fact that we have D language foundation, state of D survey, extensive autotester and regular release schelude seem to imply, for me, that much more than ADD is being done. But then again, my D projects so far are too small that I could really know where the problems are. It may be that in time, if they grow, I start to agree with you.
Re: D is dead (was: Dicebot on leaving D: It is anarchy driven development in all its glory.)
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: No, no and no. I was holding out on replying to this thread to see how the community would react. The vibe I'm getting, however, is that the people who are seeing D's problems have given up on affecting change. It is no secret that when I joined Weka, I was a sole D detractor among a company quite enamored with the language. I used to have quite heated water cooler debates about that point of view. Every single one of the people rushing to defend D at the time has since come around. There is still some debate on whether, points vs. counter points, choosing D was a good idea, but the overwhelming consensus inside Weka today is that D has *fatal* flaws and no path to fixing them. And by "fatal", I mean literally flaws that are likely to literally kill the language. And the thing that brought them around is not my power of persuasion. The thing that brought them around was spending a couple of years working with the language on an every-day basis. And you will notice this in the way Weka employees talk on this forum: except me, they all disappeared. You used to see Idan, Tomer and Eyal post here. Where are they? This forum is hostile to criticism, and generally tries to keep everyone using D the same way. If you're cutting edge D, the forum is almost no help at all. Consensus among former posters here is that it is generally a waste of time, so almost everyone left, and those who didn't, stopped posting. And it's not just Weka. I've had a chance to talk in private to some other developers. Quite a lot have serious, fundamental issues with the language. You will notice none of them speaks up on this thread. They don't see the point. No technical project is born great. If you want a technical project to be great, the people working on it have to focus on its *flaws*. The D's community just doesn't do that. To sum it up: fatal flaws + no path to fixing + no push from the community = inevitable eventual death. With great regrets, Shachar "anarchy driven development" is a pearl. It is also mood driven development. Yesterday was scope and -dip1000 super important, today is betterC very hot and everyone works on betterC druntime, betterC Phobos, betterC libraries. Maybe -dip1000 will be made default at some point and the language will get another one well-intentioned but only half-working feature. And I'm beginning to doubt that the real problem is that the community doesn't help. Don't get me wrong, I do development in absolutely the same, anarchy driven :), way. Sometimes I can't work long enough at the same thing, sometimes I lose interest. It is also great for research and trying out new ideas since D tries to be innovative and offer a better developer experience. And I can also understand that the language authors want to control the evolution of the language and try make it better testing new ideas. But this kind of development doesn't work anymore that well for commercial customers that aren't (only) interested in research. From this perspective D becomes over-complicated, half-finished language. And nobody can tell what will be "in" tomorrow.
Re: D is dead
On 23/08/18 07:35, Dukc wrote: On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Every single one of the people rushing to defend D at the time has since come around. There is still some debate on whether, points vs. counter points, choosing D was a good idea, but the overwhelming consensus inside Weka today is that D has *fatal* flaws and no path to fixing them. And by "fatal", I mean literally flaws that are likely to literally kill the language. How so? If he's right with those issues, they can definitely prevent D from becoming mainstream, but how would they kill D? I mean, will not there always be some existing users who have no need or wish to move on? Maintaining a language requires a lot of work. The "payback" for that work comes from people who actually use that work. If the D community starts to contract, it will become more and more difficult to find people willing to work on D's core features, which will lead to stagnation which is the same as death. But, again, it is interesting to see what you took from my mail. I'd be much more worried about the fact that it is working with D that caused people to recognize the problems as fundamental than about what "death" means in this context. Shachar
Re: D is dead (was: Dicebot on leaving D: It is anarchy driven development in all its glory.)
On Thursday, 23 August 2018 at 03:50:44 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote: Every single one of the people rushing to defend D at the time has since come around. There is still some debate on whether, points vs. counter points, choosing D was a good idea, but the overwhelming consensus inside Weka today is that D has *fatal* flaws and no path to fixing them. And by "fatal", I mean literally flaws that are likely to literally kill the language. How so? If he's right with those issues, they can definitely prevent D from becoming mainstream, but how would they kill D? I mean, will not there always be some existing users who have no need or wish to move on?
D is dead (was: Dicebot on leaving D: It is anarchy driven development in all its glory.)
On 22/08/18 21:34, Ali wrote: On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 at 17:42:56 UTC, Joakim wrote: Pretty positive overall, and the negatives he mentions are fairly obvious to anyone paying attention. Yea, I agree, the negatives are not really negative Walter not matter how smart he is, he is one man who can work on the so many things at the same time Its a chicken and egg situation, D needs more core contributors, and to get more contributors it needs more users, and to get more users it need more core contributors No, no and no. I was holding out on replying to this thread to see how the community would react. The vibe I'm getting, however, is that the people who are seeing D's problems have given up on affecting change. It is no secret that when I joined Weka, I was a sole D detractor among a company quite enamored with the language. I used to have quite heated water cooler debates about that point of view. Every single one of the people rushing to defend D at the time has since come around. There is still some debate on whether, points vs. counter points, choosing D was a good idea, but the overwhelming consensus inside Weka today is that D has *fatal* flaws and no path to fixing them. And by "fatal", I mean literally flaws that are likely to literally kill the language. And the thing that brought them around is not my power of persuasion. The thing that brought them around was spending a couple of years working with the language on an every-day basis. And you will notice this in the way Weka employees talk on this forum: except me, they all disappeared. You used to see Idan, Tomer and Eyal post here. Where are they? This forum is hostile to criticism, and generally tries to keep everyone using D the same way. If you're cutting edge D, the forum is almost no help at all. Consensus among former posters here is that it is generally a waste of time, so almost everyone left, and those who didn't, stopped posting. And it's not just Weka. I've had a chance to talk in private to some other developers. Quite a lot have serious, fundamental issues with the language. You will notice none of them speaks up on this thread. They don't see the point. No technical project is born great. If you want a technical project to be great, the people working on it have to focus on its *flaws*. The D's community just doesn't do that. To sum it up: fatal flaws + no path to fixing + no push from the community = inevitable eventual death. With great regrets, Shachar
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
JamesKan wrote: Andrei wants some (he just wants money, huh). Walter? Shut it down. Count the people engaged in this whatever it is, and if a few select capitalize on its failure, then, who are you? There is no money in D. None. Nada. Religions are not for profit. It's OK to worship, whoever stupid people want to. If TDPL goes to press, there is something VERY wrong (and there is). All the money goes into buying food for the troll.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
JamesKan Wrote: Andrei wants some (he just wants money, huh). Walter? Shut it down. Count the people engaged in this whatever it is, and if a few select capitalize on its failure, then, who are you? There is no money in D. None. Nada. Religions are not for profit. It's OK to worship, whoever stupid people want to. If TDPL goes to press, there is something VERY wrong (and there is). All the money has gone to build a large volcano complex where Walter can sit all day stroking a white cat and plotting the downfall of C++... -=mike=-
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Mike James wrote: All the money has gone to build a large volcano complex where Walter can sit all day stroking a white cat and plotting the downfall of C++... Eeexcellhhhnt!! twirls mustache
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote: Mike James wrote: All the money has gone to build a large volcano complex where Walter can sit all day stroking a white cat and plotting the downfall of C++... Eeexcellhhhnt!! twirls mustache You've grown a mustache? Perfect! Finally there's hope for D!* *http://www.alenz.org/mirror/khason/why-microsoft-can-blow-off-with-c.html -- Simen
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Hello Walter, I know a guy who got pasted enough in an online forum[...] got pasted? -- ... IXOYE
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
BCS wrote: Hello Walter, I know a guy who got pasted enough in an online forum[...] got pasted? It's an old expression for bombing an area to bits.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
JamesKan Wrote: Andrei wants some (he just wants money, huh). Walter? Shut it down. Count the people engaged in this whatever it is, and if a few select capitalize on its failure, then, who are you? There is no money in D. None. Nada. Religions are not for profit. It's OK to worship, whoever stupid people want to. If TDPL goes to press, there is something VERY wrong (and there is). Bitching about your own life disappointments? Whenever you go everything appears the same? Here's an idea: go some place else!
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
On 03/28/2010 07:16 AM, JamesKan wrote: Andrei wants some (he just wants money, huh). Walter? Shut it down. Count the people engaged in thiswhatever it is, and if a few select capitalize on its failure, then, who are you? There is no money in D. None. Nada. Religions are not for profit. It's OK to worship, whoever stupid people want to. If TDPL goes to press, there is something VERY wrong (and there is). Have I not seen this very text before on this newsgroup? Or at least something very similar? Fun.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
On 28-mar-10, at 12:10, Bane wrote: JamesKan Wrote: Andrei wants some (he just wants money, huh). Walter? Shut it down. Count the people engaged in this whatever it is, and if a few select capitalize on its failure, then, who are you? There is no money in D. None. Nada. Religions are not for profit. It's OK to worship, whoever stupid people want to. If TDPL goes to press, there is something VERY wrong (and there is). Bitching about your own life disappointments? Whenever you go everything appears the same? Here's an idea: go some place else! yep it sure looks like it, why the hate? For sure it is possible to use D fruitfully (I hope that I am doing that). I cannot talk too much about D 2.0 because I participated on discussions mostly as outsider (i.e. non D 2.0 user), but I sure think that there are improvements in D 2.0. I don't agree with all changes, and I think that D 2.0 is not yet ready for me, and D1.0 is quite good already, and I like its stability (even it also botches sometime). Still freezing D2 is for sure not a bad thing, and if the book contributes to that then good... Fawzi
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
On 28-mar-10, at 13:20, Pelle Månsson wrote: On 03/28/2010 07:16 AM, JamesKan wrote: Andrei wants some (he just wants money, huh). Walter? Shut it down. Count the people engaged in thiswhatever it is, and if a few select capitalize on its failure, then, who are you? There is no money in D. None. Nada. Religions are not for profit. It's OK to worship, whoever stupid people want to. If TDPL goes to press, there is something VERY wrong (and there is). Have I not seen this very text before on this newsgroup? Or at least something very similar? Fun. yes it seems that some...@someplace is venting off, and putting energy in making stuff look bad rather than improving or making his own stuff..
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:20:57 +0200, Pelle Månsson wrote: On 03/28/2010 07:16 AM, JamesKan wrote: Andrei wants some (he just wants money, huh). Walter? Shut it down. Count the people engaged in thiswhatever it is, and if a few select capitalize on its failure, then, who are you? There is no money in D. None. Nada. Religions are not for profit. It's OK to worship, whoever stupid people want to. If TDPL goes to press, there is something VERY wrong (and there is). Have I not seen this very text before on this newsgroup? Or at least something very similar? Fun. Do you mean this one? What problems has D solved? (Other than providing compiler writers with masturbatory material). Light bulb (!!!): D is a circle jerk! (Not that there's anything wrong with that). It has a similar tone. Why would someone be so bitter and write so badly? Even if it were the case that D was not really any more than a discussion group for ideas about compiler design, it would still be a worthwhile exercise. Walter has been contributing to the industry for years, and anyone who has done that in the way he has will have experienced ups and downs. He's the last person I know who I would describe as money-grabbing. If Andrei wants to risk all the work it takes to get a book published, and he's bet on a particular horse, then whichever way it goes, that's his own choice. Since when was there an unwritten rule that you can't do speculative technical work with a view to making some money in the future. If people hadn't done that many times we would barely have computers and computer languages at all! I'd put it more bluntly than some (not to you Pelle) - piss off you anonymous prat, or be clear about your identity then we can all judge your motives. Steve
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Do you mean this one? What problems has D solved? (Other than providing compiler writers with masturbatory material). Light bulb (!!!): D is a circle jerk! (Not that there's anything wrong with that). It has a similar tone. Why would someone be so bitter and write so badly? Even if it were the case that D was not really any more than a discussion group for ideas about compiler design, it would still be a worthwhile exercise. Walter has been contributing to the industry for years, and anyone who has done that in the way he has will have experienced ups and downs. He's the last person I know who I would describe as money-grabbing. If Andrei wants to risk all the work it takes to get a book published, and he's bet on a particular horse, then whichever way it goes, that's his own choice. Since when was there an unwritten rule that you can't do speculative technical work with a view to making some money in the future. If people hadn't done that many times we would barely have computers and computer languages at all! I'd put it more bluntly than some (not to you Pelle) - piss off you anonymous prat, or be clear about your identity then we can all judge your motives. Steve I agree with Steve.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Bane Wrote: Do you mean this one? What problems has D solved? (Other than providing compiler writers with masturbatory material). Light bulb (!!!): D is a circle jerk! (Not that there's anything wrong with that). It has a similar tone. Why would someone be so bitter and write so badly? Even if it were the case that D was not really any more than a discussion group for ideas about compiler design, it would still be a worthwhile exercise. Walter has been contributing to the industry for years, and anyone who has done that in the way he has will have experienced ups and downs. He's the last person I know who I would describe as money-grabbing. If Andrei wants to risk all the work it takes to get a book published, and he's bet on a particular horse, then whichever way it goes, that's his own choice. Since when was there an unwritten rule that you can't do speculative technical work with a view to making some money in the future. If people hadn't done that many times we would barely have computers and computer languages at all! I'd put it more bluntly than some (not to you Pelle) - piss off you anonymous prat, or be clear about your identity then we can all judge your motives. Steve I agree with Steve. jesus homies. hez a troll fer fucks sake. can't believe u r tryin' teh communicate let alone reason with dat asstodeepthroater. all groups haz trollz. its a sign of popularity. kudos homies but fuhget about it. u don't reason with'em trollz.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:55:50 -0400, superdan wrote: jesus homies. hez a troll fer fucks sake. can't believe u r tryin' teh communicate let alone reason with dat asstodeepthroater. all groups haz trollz. its a sign of popularity. kudos homies but fuhget about it. u don't reason with'em trollz. SD, There was not an ounce of reason in my post, just a gut response. Had I been as eloquent as you I might have used the 'asstodeepthroater' term instead of prat - next time perhaps. It's a while since we heard from you!
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
superdan wrote: jesus homies. Hey, we missed you! Nice to see you back!
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Walter Bright Wrote: superdan wrote: jesus homies. Hey, we missed you! Nice to see you back! yo walt. u rule.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Steve Teale steve.te...@britseyeview.com wrote in message news:hononf$1tf...@digitalmars.com... Why would someone be so bitter and write so badly? Even if it were the case that D was not really any more than a discussion group for ideas about compiler design, it would still be a worthwhile exercise. Maybe it's Bjarne Stroustrup and he's getting worried ;) (That's only a joke, btw.) To all: This guy's just going to keep posting more of this stuff under more fake names if we keep feeding him. It's not like anyone's ever going to successfully appeal to a troll's sense of reason, as there clearly is none.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Steve Teale Wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:55:50 -0400, superdan wrote: jesus homies. hez a troll fer fucks sake. can't believe u r tryin' teh communicate let alone reason with dat asstodeepthroater. all groups haz trollz. its a sign of popularity. kudos homies but fuhget about it. u don't reason with'em trollz. SD, There was not an ounce of reason in my post, just a gut response. Had I been as eloquent as you I might have used the 'asstodeepthroater' term instead of prat - next time perhaps. It's a while since we heard from you! yo steve, howz africa treatin' ye? shit them crackerz call me african american but ive never set foot in africa. should visit sumtime. doing well. been lurkin' all along. good group. it was da best better than a good talk show. smart civil homiez. even bearophile. even u yigal when u keep dat douchebag urge in check. problem iz trollz r startin' to fuck this group. shit man i knew dat waz coming down.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Nick Sabalausky Wrote: Steve Teale steve.te...@britseyeview.com wrote in message news:hononf$1tf...@digitalmars.com... Why would someone be so bitter and write so badly? Even if it were the case that D was not really any more than a discussion group for ideas about compiler design, it would still be a worthwhile exercise. Maybe it's Bjarne Stroustrup and he's getting worried ;) (That's only a joke, btw.) To all: This guy's just going to keep posting more of this stuff under more fake names if we keep feeding him. It's not like anyone's ever going to successfully appeal to a troll's sense of reason, as there clearly is none. listen to dis homie. u cant figure out them trollz. da concept they spend time trolling n inventing namez n changing stylez n shit boggles the fuck outta me. u cant understand trollz. u hope they look fer professional help.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Nick Sabalausky wrote: Maybe it's Bjarne Stroustrup and he's getting worried ;) (That's only a joke, btw.) With the troll's poor grammar and generally incomprehensible mishmash, I seriously doubt he's an alias for an accomplished and eloquent professional writer.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Hello superdan, Bane Wrote: I'd put it more bluntly than some (not to you Pelle) - piss off you anonymous prat, or be clear about your identity then we can all judge your motives. Steve I agree with Steve. jesus homies. hez a troll fer fucks sake. can't believe u r tryin' teh communicate let alone reason with dat asstodeepthroater. The only part directed at the OP didn't look like an attempt to reason with them. Personably, I think it can be interesting dissecting the reasoning of unreasonable people. -- ... IXOYE
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Hello Walter, Nick Sabalausky wrote: Maybe it's Bjarne Stroustrup and he's getting worried ;) (That's only a joke, btw.) With the troll's poor grammar and generally incomprehensible mishmash, I seriously doubt he's an alias for an accomplished and eloquent professional writer. I think you are correct, OTOH; what better way for such a person to hide than to forgo what they are best known for? -- ... IXOYE
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Hello JamesKan, Clearly the OP doesn't know what he's talking about so the following is mostly for the rest of us. There is no money in D. Well Duh! We all known that. Name a language that (directly) made it's creators money. (Hit: MS *gives way* the C# compiler.) The money is in the tools (and going on the talking circuit). -- ... IXOYE
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
BCS wrote: I think you are correct, OTOH; what better way for such a person to hide than to forgo what they are best known for? True, except it's really hard to hide one's writing style. It's like trying to disguise your handwriting.
Re: D is dead, so now where it the money going?
BCS wrote: Yeah, but it you make it hard enough to read, then people won't have any brain cycle left over to do pattern matching. /joke OTOH if you do it wrong, they might no even read it in the first place. It's also remarkably consistent in style with the other troll posts here, and totally unlike Bjarne's style. I would say that is a very hard thing to pull off. I know a guy who got pasted enough in an online forum that he disappeared and re-emerged a while later under a new pseudonym. He got outed within a couple days, and accused me of ratting him out to the other forum members. I told him that was hardly necessary, as I pointed out that he often used some unique stock phrases, and repeated them under his new name. Everyone immediately knew it was him. He did a few more name changes, and tried pretty hard to hide his style, but people always caught on. He finally gave up and just accepted that people knew who he was, and he got gently ribbed about it now and then.
D is dead, so now where it the money going?
Andrei wants some (he just wants money, huh). Walter? Shut it down. Count the people engaged in this whatever it is, and if a few select capitalize on its failure, then, who are you? There is no money in D. None. Nada. Religions are not for profit. It's OK to worship, whoever stupid people want to. If TDPL goes to press, there is something VERY wrong (and there is).
