Re: D loosing the battle
Don wrote: Sean Kelly wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: I have two more that compliment that. Some people think there writing "complement" and "they're" correctly but they aren't. I see what you did there! It peeked my interest, but it was a mute point. Well, that point is seperate from mine. Its just that the clarity of the point is marred by it's being prolix. Andrei
Re: D loosing the battle
Don wrote: Sean Kelly wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: I have two more that compliment that. Some people think there writing "complement" and "they're" correctly but they aren't. I see what you did there! It peeked my interest, but it was a mute point. You mean a moo point, shurely.
Re: D loosing the battle
Sean Kelly wrote: Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: I have two more that compliment that. Some people think there writing "complement" and "they're" correctly but they aren't. I see what you did there! It peeked my interest, but it was a mute point.
Re: D loosing the battle
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > > I have two more that compliment that. Some people think there writing > "complement" and "they're" correctly but they aren't. I see what you did there!
Re: D loosing the battle
Mike Parker wrote: Bill Baxter wrote: 2009/11/5 Jonas Byström : Hi, I had great hope that D within a few years would be the new standard for people requiring high performance from their language. Then I got wiser (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20091101/does-slow-growth-equal-slow-death.html?partner=fogcreek), realizing that D must invade the C/C++ space to not dissappear. And, sadly, D has not done that, and is definitely moving towards filling a hole in cyberspace (http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html). Heck, it's not even listed on Language Shootout any more. To gain popularity, I would guess that you need to integrate with Microsofts Visual Studio (plugin compiler and syntax highlighting). And that you need a few larger projects on board, such as game engines. There is still hope! Use it or loose it. :) It's "losing" and "lose", BTW. --bb My biggest pet peeve in the Internet Age, that. I have two more that compliment that. Some people think there writing "complement" and "they're" correctly but they aren't. Andrei
Re: D loosing the battle
Bill Baxter wrote: 2009/11/5 Jonas Byström : Hi, I had great hope that D within a few years would be the new standard for people requiring high performance from their language. Then I got wiser (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20091101/does-slow-growth-equal-slow-death.html?partner=fogcreek), realizing that D must invade the C/C++ space to not dissappear. And, sadly, D has not done that, and is definitely moving towards filling a hole in cyberspace (http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html). Heck, it's not even listed on Language Shootout any more. To gain popularity, I would guess that you need to integrate with Microsofts Visual Studio (plugin compiler and syntax highlighting). And that you need a few larger projects on board, such as game engines. There is still hope! Use it or loose it. :) It's "losing" and "lose", BTW. --bb My biggest pet peeve in the Internet Age, that.
Re: D loosing the battle
2009/11/5 Jonas Byström : > Hi, > > I had great hope that D within a few years would be the new standard for > people requiring high performance from their language. Then I got wiser > (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20091101/does-slow-growth-equal-slow-death.html?partner=fogcreek), > realizing that D must invade the C/C++ space to not dissappear. And, sadly, > D has not done that, and is definitely moving towards filling a hole in > cyberspace > (http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html). Heck, > it's not even listed on Language Shootout any more. > > To gain popularity, I would guess that you need to integrate with Microsofts > Visual Studio (plugin compiler and syntax highlighting). And that you need a > few larger projects on board, such as game engines. > > There is still hope! Use it or loose it. :) > It's "losing" and "lose", BTW. --bb
Re: D loosing the battle
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:46:21 -0500, gzp wrote: > So please emphasize the wiki4D a little bit more (like in the overview, > on the future page, so on) on the official page. I think it'd help > newbies a lot to find informations more easily. > > So thanks - this a reason I like D+community, they always answer my > questions :) Point taken, I've requested to have a website enhanced with more links to Wiki4D. Take a look and comment on anything might also like to see: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3497
Re: D loosing the battle
Thanks for all. Well, it seems as all of my concerns are answered somewhere on the net. So than i have only one more request left, please update the web pages on the http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/... to have references to the more verbose net sources (and not just at the additional links) Ex. I've been checking the http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/future.html and other page from the site all the time, to see what's going on and didn't even know (didn' even thought of ) there exists more detailed pages of this topic (as I thought the official site should have all the main informations). So please emphasize the wiki4D a little bit more (like in the overview, on the future page, so on) on the official page. I think it'd help newbies a lot to find informations more easily. So thanks - this a reason I like D+community, they always answer my questions :)
Re: D loosing the battle
My first observation is that you are using D2 expecting it to be stable. The website still doesn't make it clear that D2 should be used for minor tasks to experiment with the language. That said, I can see the concern that if you code for D1 you'll still have the incompatibility. But it would still be better to go from D1 to D2 than try and match all the changes as they happen. There is a page to help with this transition too: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/features2.html There is also a more permanent place to find the proposal for properties. http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs It seems Walter has gone with the idea of annotations, though no formal word on that: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6 There is also a page with many things that still need changed in the compiler, ideas Walter wanted in, informal suggestions that haven't gotten feedback: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel#FutureDirections I hope these likes have been what you were looking for.
Re: D loosing the battle
gzp: > but by the time I was almost finished, I saw some major > features are being altered. The situation is really simple: D2 is alpha state still, don't use it to develop real code. Use it only if you want to do experiments or if you want to add things to its std lib. For all other usages use D1. > there was a proposal about altering the > property. There`s also been a voting, but now there's no sign of this > anywhere (except for the forum). It's being implemented. Probably it will be present when D2 comes out of alpha state. > The same stands for the scoped variables. I've started to use it to > allocate class instances of (small)matrices on the stack, but than i've > read, it will go. Scoped objects will not go away (lot of people will not accept such change). And with some luck we'll see scoped objects inside other objects (and maybe scoped dynamic arrays too, that are easy to implement and to make safe). >Missing stable, compiler with enhanced optimization features (minor > issue). LDC optimizes quite well. Bye, bearophile
Re: D loosing the battle
I've been following D for a while, and I've lost some of my interest too for several reasons. The continuous redesign. When I started to implement s/g, I checked what opportunities I have, what the language specification tells, and what others did to achieve a similar goal. Then I implemented my own version, but by the time I was almost finished, I saw some major features are being altered. (scope - allocation, Ranges, operator overloading, struct constructors, array referencing, property, etc.). I know D is a language being developed, but when core functionality is being altered all the time, it's really hard to design/implement new libraries. At least D users (especially for newbies) should be informed of the state of the progress, not only through mailing list since the have lot's of proposals those are dropped immediately. ex: The language reference should be up to date as much as possible and *HILIGHT* the features being redesigned and what are the proposals (in 1-2 words). I'm sure Walter, Andrei, and the other (key) developers have a todo-list (and some time-tables) for the proposed modifications. (If no, D is Doomed for sure, since after a while no one knows what's finished and what is still to be implemented, and what was the planned feature) For example, some time back, there was a proposal about altering the property. There`s also been a voting, but now there's no sign of this anywhere (except for the forum). I liked the property idea a lot, but I cannot use it, i cannot even design my code to later update it using properties as there's no sign of its currnet state. I know the current property implementation is based on omitting the () signs, but I'm not using it, as it was meant to be changed, but when and how ??? The same stands for the scoped variables. I've started to use it to allocate class instances of (small)matrices on the stack, but than i've read, it will go. So I have to redesign things to use structs instead of classes to have them on the stack, but using struct requires other type of initialization mechanism, as they have no default constructor to overload. And now the construction of the struct is being altered as well. And so on... I don't require a language with all the features completed, but altering the core features makes it impossible to create new/stable libraries. I can go quite well without the opPow, and other operator overloading stuffs. I will update the library if they are present in the language and call the my appropriate function ( 1+2 additional lines to the source) but how to design anything if basic semantics are changing ?! Lack of IDE (minor issue). It's not a big problem, actually I can go quite well without an IDE, or without a debugger either (good old printf:) in most cases. (I've seen there were made great progresses in this as well) Missing stable, compiler with enhanced optimization features (minor issue). I've tried to reimplement some of my older algorithm from c++, but finally I haven't even tried most of them, as I didn't see any optimization in the asm codes for my simplest range. (The popFront, front, empty function calls were not inlined at all - though i didn't experienced with it too much as I could not find an appropriate IDE/debugger to check the asm code and insert breakpoints) I've tried to use gdc, but it only superts D1. The patch/branch to use D2 i have to be built manually. I don't want to compile, patch, etc. a C/C++ project from some unstable source and work for hours to have a working D compiler. I want to do D. So for these reason I'm in a passive state and i'm waiting where D goes to. According to my oppinion there are many other programmars following D in a passive way like I do. I like many features of D (and dislike some - but it's ok, cannot have a language that fits all the desires for everybody ), but while it's in a so mutable state, it`s hard to use it. I have to wait while most features are made immutable (and not const, that can be altered through some nasty const_cast proposals :) ). Regards, Gzp
