Daily downloads in decline
Per http://erdani.com/d/downloads.daily.png, the 28-day moving average of daily dmd downloads is in pronounced decline following a peak at the 2.067 release. It is possible that the recent release of Rust 1.0 has caused that, shifting drive-by experimenters to it. We need to act on this on multiple fronts. 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. 2. It's an equally big bummer that "This Week in D" failed to be there on Sunday night. I completely understand Adam's overhead, what with his still traveling and all, but the bottom line is if it's not every Sunday it's not steady and if it's not steady it's not. Again, in retrospect it seems we need backup plans for when the protagonist of whatever important activity is unable to carry it. Who'd like to double Adam on this? 3. We've just had a good conference with solid content, but if our collective actions are to be interpreted, we did our best to be as stealth as possible. Please consider writing blogs, articles, tweets, posts, related to all that stuff. Speakers in particular should consider converting their good work into articles. Programmer news sites are full of Rust-related stuff; we must respond in kind with great D content. All of us who have an interest in D to succeed must understand there is also a proportional sense of duty. If you can do X and don't, it can be safely assumed X will just not get done at all. Which means whatever you can do, please just do it, do it now, and stay with it until it's done. Thanks, Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/1/15 11:11 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: [...] Meant to also add 4. We need to marshal our efforts behind 2.068, and clarify the big ticket items accomplished. I'm thinking rangification of Phobos - GC no longer needed for most primitives, and documented where needed. As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. What other large topics for 2.068? Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/1/2015 11:11 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 3. We've just had a good conference with solid content, but if our collective actions are to be interpreted, we did our best to be as stealth as possible. Please consider writing blogs, articles, tweets, posts, related to all that stuff. Speakers in particular should consider converting their good work into articles. Programmer news sites are full of Rust-related stuff; we must respond in kind with great D content. I want to chime in with the fact that our most effective method of getting the word out is to write articles. Far more people will read articles (or at least scan them) than watch videos. For those writing D tools - sitting and waiting for someone else to write articles about how cool they are IS NOT GOING TO WORK. You simply must write articles about them, or your hard work creating the tool will be in vain. Posting a link to a github repository is NOT sufficient. You have to give people a reason to look at the tool. I know so many people who wrote cool tools and then gave up in bitterness and frustration because the tools never gained traction. There's a 100% correlation between that and failing to write any articles or attempt any promotion whatsoever. "Build It And They Will Come" is a stupid hollywood myth. Posting "I wrote a tool, here's a github link to the source code" is doomed to oblivion. I'll reiterate what Andrei said - speakers, you already have the material. Write a companion article! A bonus will be that it will improve your professional reputation, which is worth $$$.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Per http://erdani.com/d/downloads.daily.png, the 28-day moving average of daily dmd downloads is in pronounced decline following a peak at the 2.067 release. It is possible that the recent release of Rust 1.0 has caused that, shifting drive-by experimenters to it. I don't know that we should over-react to the recent slump, especially since it was presaged by such a large spike. I'm sure it'll pick back up again as people start watching the Dconf 2015 videos. Filtering out the noise, the daily download numbers look stable around 1200 for almost the last year. The real issue is how we take the next jump upwards. Hopefully, mobile support, which only Dan and I are working on right now, can help with that. :) 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Given the subpar quality of the livestream, I'm not sure we should be highlighting those videos. I've watched several hours of the livestream and the frequent audio dropouts are very annoying. What is the plan to put out the better videos recorded by the organizers: put them all out as soon as they're available or stagger their release? On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 4. We need to marshal our efforts behind 2.068, and clarify the big ticket items accomplished. I'm thinking rangification of Phobos - GC no longer needed for most primitives, and documented where needed. As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. Can you expand on why ddmd is getting delayed? I, and seemingly many others, were looking forward to ddmd. I did not see Daniel's talk as it wasn't livestreamed. Perhaps we can help get ddmd out the door.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:58:04 UTC, Joakim wrote: Can you expand on why ddmd is getting delayed? I, and seemingly many others, were looking forward to ddmd. I did not see Daniel's talk as it wasn't livestreamed. Perhaps we can help get ddmd out the door. The primary hang-up is that both gdc and ldc need to be at version 2.067 so that they can be used to compile ddmd and so that we can be sure that having 2.067 as the base for ddmd is going to work with all three compilers (also, we want to release a ddmd binary built by gdc or ldc, not dmd, so that we can avoid a speed drop in the resulting binary). As I understand it LLVM has a blocker in LLVM which currently prevents them from updating. I don't know about gdc. But regardless, those are going to need to be taken care of first. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/1/15 11:58 AM, Joakim wrote: What is the plan to put out the better videos recorded by the organizers: put them all out as soon as they're available or stagger their release? All at once. On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 4. We need to marshal our efforts behind 2.068, and clarify the big ticket items accomplished. I'm thinking rangification of Phobos - GC no longer needed for most primitives, and documented where needed. As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. Can you expand on why ddmd is getting delayed? I, and seemingly many others, were looking forward to ddmd. I did not see Daniel's talk as it wasn't livestreamed. Perhaps we can help get ddmd out the door. We need either gdc 2.067 or ldc 2.067 released in order to build ddmd with them. Otherwise we're suffering a 20% perf loss. Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:58:04 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Per http://erdani.com/d/downloads.daily.png, the 28-day moving average of daily dmd downloads is in pronounced decline following a peak at the 2.067 release. It is possible that the recent release of Rust 1.0 has caused that, shifting drive-by experimenters to it. I don't know that we should over-react to the recent slump, especially since it was presaged by such a large spike. I'm sure it'll pick back up again as people start watching the Dconf 2015 videos. Filtering out the noise, the daily download numbers look stable around 1200 for almost the last year. The real issue is how we take the next jump upwards. Hopefully, mobile support, which only Dan and I are working on right now, can help with that. :) 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Given the subpar quality of the livestream, I'm not sure we should be highlighting those videos. I've watched several hours of the livestream and the frequent audio dropouts are very annoying. What is the plan to put out the better videos recorded by the organizers: put them all out as soon as they're available or stagger their release? On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 4. We need to marshal our efforts behind 2.068, and clarify the big ticket items accomplished. I'm thinking rangification of Phobos - GC no longer needed for most primitives, and documented where needed. As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. Can you expand on why ddmd is getting delayed? I, and seemingly many others, were looking forward to ddmd. I did not see Daniel's talk as it wasn't livestreamed. Perhaps we can help get ddmd out the door. Im Curious, is the effort putting more focus towards iOS or Android? Also, it would probably help if the version numbers didnt increment so slowly. Maybe 2.10 for DDMD?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:35:16 UTC, Israel wrote: Im Curious, is the effort putting more focus towards iOS or Android? Neither, Dan has been working on iOS, while I focus on Android. iOS support has been farther along for some time though, as Dan has said in another thread: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.284.1432823930.7663.digitalmar...@puremagic.com?page=6#post-m2wpznsx37.fsf:40comcast.net
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/1/15 11:11 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: [...] Meant to also add 4. We need to marshal our efforts behind 2.068, and clarify the big ticket items accomplished. I'm thinking rangification of Phobos - GC no longer needed for most primitives, and documented where needed. As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. What other large topics for 2.068? Andrei The unique/shared changes are rather large changes, they've been pretty much revamped. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3139 - pulled already https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3259 - not done https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/3225 - not done getting these done before 2.068 should be pretty high priority.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:29:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/1/15 11:58 AM, Joakim wrote: What is the plan to put out the better videos recorded by the organizers: put them all out as soon as they're available or stagger their release? All at once. On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 4. We need to marshal our efforts behind 2.068, and clarify the big ticket items accomplished. I'm thinking rangification of Phobos - GC no longer needed for most primitives, and documented where needed. As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. Can you expand on why ddmd is getting delayed? I, and seemingly many others, were looking forward to ddmd. I did not see Daniel's talk as it wasn't livestreamed. Perhaps we can help get ddmd out the door. We need either gdc 2.067 or ldc 2.067 released in order to build ddmd with them. Otherwise we're suffering a 20% perf loss. Andrei at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:48:01 UTC, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) Once SDC is at a point where it can compile most of or all D code that DMD compiles, it would be a good replacement.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:48:01 UTC, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) Given how slow they are at compiling? Not a chance. dmd's speed is a huge feature. What I would recommend (and have heard others recommend) is that development normally be done with dmd so that you can get the fast compile-test-edit cycle that it enables and then use gdc or ldc when you generate production code so that it'll actually then be optimized properly. That way, you get fast production binaries _and_ fast compilation speed where you need it. But developing code with gdc or ldc would just be painful in comparison to developing with dmd. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 06/01/2015 02:11 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: All of us who have an interest in D to succeed must understand there is also a proportional sense of duty. If you can do X and don't, it can be safely assumed X will just not get done at all. Which means whatever you can do, please just do it, do it now, and stay with it until it's done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eX3fiQLo84
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Per http://erdani.com/d/downloads.daily.png, the 28-day moving average of daily dmd downloads is in pronounced decline following a peak at the 2.067 release. It is possible that the recent release of Rust 1.0 has caused that, shifting drive-by experimenters to it. We need to act on this on multiple fronts. 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. 2. It's an equally big bummer that "This Week in D" failed to be there on Sunday night. I completely understand Adam's overhead, what with his still traveling and all, but the bottom line is if it's not every Sunday it's not steady and if it's not steady it's not. Again, in retrospect it seems we need backup plans for when the protagonist of whatever important activity is unable to carry it. Who'd like to double Adam on this? 3. We've just had a good conference with solid content, but if our collective actions are to be interpreted, we did our best to be as stealth as possible. Please consider writing blogs, articles, tweets, posts, related to all that stuff. Speakers in particular should consider converting their good work into articles. Programmer news sites are full of Rust-related stuff; we must respond in kind with great D content. All of us who have an interest in D to succeed must understand there is also a proportional sense of duty. If you can do X and don't, it can be safely assumed X will just not get done at all. Which means whatever you can do, please just do it, do it now, and stay with it until it's done. Thanks, Andrei For me any language that can help reduce the amount of C like code that keeps getting written is good. So I do cherish for all languages pursuing such goal. Anyway, I was going to post something about IO, but it can wait. Just did a short post to create awareness for the conference, slides and unedited videos availability. -- Paulo
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/1/15 2:29 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 06/01/2015 02:11 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: All of us who have an interest in D to succeed must understand there is also a proportional sense of duty. If you can do X and don't, it can be safely assumed X will just not get done at all. Which means whatever you can do, please just do it, do it now, and stay with it until it's done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eX3fiQLo84 Thought you're busy working on rdmd :o). -- Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 2. It's an equally big bummer that "This Week in D" failed to be there on Sunday night. I completely understand Adam's overhead, what with his still traveling and all, but the bottom line is if it's not every Sunday it's not steady and if it's not steady it's not. Again, in retrospect it seems we need backup plans for when the protagonist of whatever important activity is unable to carry it. Who'd like to double Adam on this? It is true that I'm extra busy this week (I return from Utah tomorrow, still out here visiting all my peeps), yesterday I was on the computer for about one hour total.. but it is also that this week is a gigantic special edition - I'm writing up summaries of all the talks, pointing out important take-aways, and commenting on various between-talk conversations. Alas, this takes a while to write too, I might finish tonight but might not. It'll be worth it though. However, I don't intend to post it without this written up. The piecemeal dconf releases on reddit last year were pretty much a complete failure. The biggest comments they attracted were people complaining that it was taking too long!
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:24:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I want to chime in with the fact that our most effective method of getting the word out is to write articles. Far more people will read articles (or at least scan them) than watch videos. I really need to get my website set up so that I can post stuff like this. I've had the domain for a while but just haven't gotten around to setting it up. :( - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 21:47:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:24:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I want to chime in with the fact that our most effective method of getting the word out is to write articles. Far more people will read articles (or at least scan them) than watch videos. I really need to get my website set up so that I can post stuff like this. I've had the domain for a while but just haven't gotten around to setting it up. :( - Jonathan M Davis maybe just use https://pages.github.com/ it is simple to setup and easy to use if you are used to github that is ;)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 22:22:06 UTC, extrawurst wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 21:47:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:24:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I want to chime in with the fact that our most effective method of getting the word out is to write articles. Far more people will read articles (or at least scan them) than watch videos. I really need to get my website set up so that I can post stuff like this. I've had the domain for a while but just haven't gotten around to setting it up. :( - Jonathan M Davis maybe just use https://pages.github.com/ it is simple to setup and easy to use if you are used to github that is ;) here is my site based on it: http://extrawurst.github.io/ (also rather #dlang centric)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 21:21:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:48:01 UTC, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) Given how slow they are at compiling? Not a chance. dmd's speed is a huge feature. dmd's speed is fast only in comparison with C++ compilers, go runs circles around it. What I would recommend (and have heard others recommend) is that development normally be done with dmd so that you can get the fast compile-test-edit cycle that it enables and then use gdc or ldc when you generate production code so that it'll actually then be optimized properly. That way, you get fast production binaries _and_ fast compilation speed where you need it. But developing code with gdc or ldc would just be painful in comparison to developing with dmd. - Jonathan M Davis it seems like it would be easier to fix LDC's compiling speed than make a 20-year old ex-C++ backend be able to compete with LLVM/GCC's codegen. or else LDC and GDC are going to forever lag behind dmd due to a lack of manpower, so you have to pick between being able to have relevant bugfixes, new features, etc from the past ~12-18, or having code that runs faster than C# on mono. The way everyone says "just develop with dmd, then use LDC/GDC for speed!" is ridiculous considering I frequently have to alter my code to even work with LDC/GDC.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/1/15 6:43 PM, weaselcat wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 21:21:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:48:01 UTC, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) Given how slow they are at compiling? Not a chance. dmd's speed is a huge feature. dmd's speed is fast only in comparison with C++ compilers, go runs circles around it. You are right! go spits out an error that my D code isn't compilable in much faster time than dmd can compile it. it seems like it would be easier to fix LDC's compiling speed than make a 20-year old ex-C++ backend be able to compete with LLVM/GCC's codegen. or else LDC and GDC are going to forever lag behind dmd due to a lack of manpower, so you have to pick between being able to have relevant bugfixes, new features, etc from the past ~12-18, or having code that runs faster than C# on mono. The way everyone says "just develop with dmd, then use LDC/GDC for speed!" is ridiculous considering I frequently have to alter my code to even work with LDC/GDC. This I agree with. Daniel mentioned at dconf that he would like to merge the front-ends, so the issues between compilers would be much easier to solve. -Steve
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 22:43:58 UTC, weaselcat wrote: dmd's speed is fast only in comparison with C++ compilers, go runs circles around it. In an apples-to-apples comparison, dmd is faster than go. That comparison can be a bit hard to set up though. If you import std.stdio for example, dmd now has to read about 100k lines of code to get all the phobos dependencies in. D can also get kinda slow with heavy ctfe... but of course, go has no ctfe at all.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 06/01/2015 05:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/1/15 2:29 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: On 06/01/2015 02:11 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: All of us who have an interest in D to succeed must understand there is also a proportional sense of duty. If you can do X and don't, it can be safely assumed X will just not get done at all. Which means whatever you can do, please just do it, do it now, and stay with it until it's done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eX3fiQLo84 Thought you're busy working on rdmd :o). -- Andrei There's always time for a Belushi reference! :)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:51:44 UTC, Meta wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:48:01 UTC, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) Once SDC is at a point where it can compile most of or all D code that DMD compiles, it would be a good replacement. Waiting for your PR :)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:29:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: We need either gdc 2.067 or ldc 2.067 released in order to build ddmd with them. Otherwise we're suffering a 20% perf loss. Note that this is a general problem, not limited to DDMD. We should definitively tie GDC and LDC closer to DMD dev. It is common for many to update to the latest version of DMD, usually because one need bugfix, and sugger that 20% slowdown because LDC and GDC are not ready.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/1/15 2:42 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: However, I don't intend to post it without this written up. Alternative: pipeline day 1 while you work on days 2 and 3. -- Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 23:06:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:51:44 UTC, Meta wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:48:01 UTC, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) Once SDC is at a point where it can compile most of or all D code that DMD compiles, it would be a good replacement. Waiting for your PR :) I might take you up on if I knew anything about LLVM or implementing a frontend.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 2 June 2015 at 04:14, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 6/1/15 11:11 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > [...] > > Meant to also add > > 4. We need to marshal our efforts behind 2.068, and clarify the big ticket > items accomplished. I'm thinking rangification of Phobos - GC no longer > needed for most primitives, and documented where needed. As much as I want > it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, > insufficient resources. > > What other large topics for 2.068? Based on other conversations, perhaps a good concept to get behind would be: LDC+GDC are first-class toolchains, and DMD devs will work together with the other compilers to release in parallel, making sure distributions for all compilers are available at the same time from the same place. I think it's been a big problem forever now that nobody can really have any confidence that the language version is matching between available compilers. You've said elsewhere, this is a major issue inhibiting ddmd? Perhaps a focus for 2.068 is to organise and address this general problem by developing better systems of coordination and release? If this can be achieved, perhaps we could promote LDC as the default go-to compiler, such that newcomers doing experiments and benchmarks will experience realistic results against competition? Constantly having to correct benchmarkers to use LDC and offer the proper flags is a bit embarrassing. I wonder how many times this has happened and it's not posted on the internet such that we are able to correct them?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 21:47:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: I really need to get my website set up so that I can post stuff like this. I've had the domain for a while but just haven't gotten around to setting it up. :( - Jonathan M Davis What about writing articles using medium.com? I see many articles on reddit from this site. Matheus.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 23:05:47 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:29:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: We need either gdc 2.067 or ldc 2.067 released in order to build ddmd with them. Otherwise we're suffering a 20% perf loss. Note that this is a general problem, not limited to DDMD. We should definitively tie GDC and LDC closer to DMD dev. It is common for many to update to the latest version of DMD, usually because one need bugfix, and sugger that 20% slowdown because LDC and GDC are not ready. Well, Daniel's big priority right now seems to be making it so that dmd, gdc, and ldc can have _exactly_ the same frontend code so that the updates required for gdc and ldc for new releases will be relatively minimal. Once that's done, the process for getting all of the backends ready for a new frontend release should be much faster. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 2 June 2015 at 05:35, Israel via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:58:04 UTC, Joakim wrote: > > Im Curious, is the effort putting more focus towards iOS or Android? > > Also, it would probably help if the version numbers didnt increment so > slowly. > Maybe 2.10 for DDMD? This is a good idea. It's subtle, but probably significant. My impression of others when discussing D with colleagues, is that it's almost entirely nothing more than a matter of perception. (...well, and the hard blockers I've mentioned elsewhere, but they don't often know about those, I keep that to myself ;) There's an important element of psychology in terms of presentation that we aren't quite getting right. I think the presentation needs to change such that the general impression move from an assorted collection of OSS community projects, to something more akin to 'a product'. With releases that are controlled, deliberate, and coordinated (between all the significant parts). Considering Andrei's comparison to Rust before; Rust does present itself as confident, deliberate, and unified. Whether this is true or not, that's the impression I have of Rust, for whatever reason. I'm not alone, my colleagues who have investigated it independently have come to the same conclusion. It's simply perception, but that's very powerful, and people seem to have more confidence in Rust at the moment. We need to make sure the public facing media makes the proper impression, and I think key to that is making sure all the fragments of the ecosystem are working properly together. I would say this is more important than language development for the moment. Package management (in one way or another) is probably a very important focus right now.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 21:37:49 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Just did a short post to create awareness for the conference, slides and unedited videos availability. What's the link?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. It's proving impractical to get this done from hotel/coffeeshop internet connections. Youtube's online editor doesn't appear to be up to be able to deal with videos this long, so it's a matter of downloading the entire videos, editing them locally and then uploading again. However, what I can do is give links to the start points of every talk, so here they are: Day 1: Brian Schott: https://youtu.be/ep5vDQq15as Liran Zvibel: https://youtu.be/-OCl-jWyT9E?t=3720 David Nadlinger: https://youtu.be/-OCl-jWyT9E?t=3720 Amaury Sechet: https://youtu.be/-OCl-jWyT9E?t=10189 Walter & Andrei AUA: https://youtu.be/-OCl-jWyT9E?t=14477 Day 2: Chuck Allison: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=182 Lightening Talks: Jonathan Crapuchettes: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=4088 Adam Ruppe: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=4477 Lionello Lunesu: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=4929 Erik Smith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH35IxWkx8M Walter Bright: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=5896 Mihails Strasuns https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=8031 Andy Smith: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=15825 Jonathan Davis: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=19410 Mark Isaacson: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=23056 Andrei Alexandrescu: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=23056 Open Mic / Q+A: https://youtu.be/AH35IxWkx8M?t=27449 Day 3: Andrei Alexandrescu: https://youtu.be/oA1exjdEIWw?t=44 Adam Ruppe: https://youtu.be/oA1exjdEIWw?t=4350 Joseph Wakeling: https://youtu.be/oA1exjdEIWw?t=7617 John Colvin: https://youtu.be/oA1exjdEIWw?t=12105 Atila Neves: https://youtu.be/oA1exjdEIWw?t=16190 Erich Gubler: https://youtu.be/oA1exjdEIWw?t=19178
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/1/2015 5:19 PM, Mattcoder wrote: What about writing articles using medium.com? I see many articles on reddit from this site. I've long maintained that professionals should register yourname.com and use that to publish their articles, resume, etc. It'll put you in control of your professional reputation.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 00:04:21 UTC, Meta wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 23:06:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:51:44 UTC, Meta wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 19:48:01 UTC, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) Once SDC is at a point where it can compile most of or all D code that DMD compiles, it would be a good replacement. Waiting for your PR :) I might take you up on if I knew anything about LLVM or implementing a frontend. It is called learning by doing.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 03:02:23 UTC, John Colvin wrote: It's proving impractical to get this done from hotel/coffeeshop internet connections. Youtube's online editor doesn't appear to be up to be able to deal with videos this long, so it's a matter of downloading the entire videos, editing them locally and then uploading again. I could do this (I have 100Mbit at home). Should I? And should I just upload them to my personal YouTube account?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Are the streamed videos the only videos available? What about the original plan to record the talks, were those canceled because someone started streaming with a laptop?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 09:35:52 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Are the streamed videos the only videos available? What about the original plan to record the talks, were those canceled because someone started streaming with a laptop? No there are HQ recordings coming: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/sujyaurgyfumoiimi...@forum.dlang.org#post-mkjtgl:242ck2:241:40digitalmars.com
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 09:35:52 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Are the streamed videos the only videos available? What about the original plan to record the talks, were those canceled because someone started streaming with a laptop? The talks were recorded and will be at higher quality than the live stream, but I don't know when they'll be done. Given that postprocessing is being done to them to insert the slides into them and whatnot, it'll take them longer than simply giving us the videos. I would have thought that we'd just wait for those rather than trying to chop up the live stream and present that to folks, but I guess that Andrei wants to make the talks available as quickly as possible. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/1/15 11:11 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: What other large topics for 2.068? I'm still working on Windows DLL support whenever I find time, and I hope to get it done for 2.068 or 2.069 Kind Regards Benjamin Thaut
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 09:53:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 09:35:52 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Are the streamed videos the only videos available? What about the original plan to record the talks, were those canceled because someone started streaming with a laptop? The talks were recorded and will be at higher quality than the live stream, but I don't know when they'll be done. Given that postprocessing is being done to them to insert the slides into them and whatnot, it'll take them longer than simply giving us the videos. I would have thought that we'd just wait for those rather than trying to chop up the live stream and present that to folks, but I guess that Andrei wants to make the talks available as quickly as possible. - Jonathan M Davis Personally, while I appreciate Johns efforts with the livestream and then chopping the videos up, I'm waiting for the professionally done versions. I just cant bring myself to follow the choppy audio :)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 10:54:12 UTC, wobbles wrote: On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 09:53:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Tuesday, 2 June 2015 at 09:35:52 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Are the streamed videos the only videos available? What about the original plan to record the talks, were those canceled because someone started streaming with a laptop? The talks were recorded and will be at higher quality than the live stream, but I don't know when they'll be done. Given that postprocessing is being done to them to insert the slides into them and whatnot, it'll take them longer than simply giving us the videos. I would have thought that we'd just wait for those rather than trying to chop up the live stream and present that to folks, but I guess that Andrei wants to make the talks available as quickly as possible. - Jonathan M Davis Personally, while I appreciate Johns efforts with the livestream and then chopping the videos up, I'm waiting for the professionally done versions. I just cant bring myself to follow the choppy audio :) Yeah me neither. I mean it was good for adhoc live stream but I even suggest taking them offline to keep everyone asking if those are the only videos and making an even poorer impression to the outside (of this forum)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 01/06/2015 20:47, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) It's past the time. The traction and support that Rust gained, even before 1.0, showed that having your primary toolchain based on GCC or LLVM is the only sustainable way forward (and even of those two, GCC might not be able to keep with LLVM). -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/5/15 12:02 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote: The traction and support that Rust gained, even before 1.0, showed that having your primary toolchain based on GCC or LLVM is the only sustainable way forward Well I'm wondering how that inference works. -- Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 19:09:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/5/15 12:02 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote: The traction and support that Rust gained, even before 1.0, showed that having your primary toolchain based on GCC or LLVM is the only sustainable way forward Well I'm wondering how that inference works. -- Andrei I have to say i agree with the conclusion, but I'm only puzzled by the reasoning used to come to that conclusion.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. Why is that? A first test release does not seem to be further away than, say, full rangeification of Phobos. - David
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 19:02:15 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 01/06/2015 20:47, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) It's past the time. The traction and support that Rust gained, even before 1.0, showed that having your primary toolchain based on GCC or LLVM is the only sustainable way forward (and even of those two, GCC might not be able to keep with LLVM). Nice work on the RustDT IDE btw. (https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rustdt-0-1-0-released-a-new-eclipse-rust-ide)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 05/06/2015 20:09, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/5/15 12:02 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote: The traction and support that Rust gained, even before 1.0, showed that having your primary toolchain based on GCC or LLVM is the only sustainable way forward Well I'm wondering how that inference works. -- Andrei Indeed I wasn't clear on that reasoning. It's not the traction that Rust gained that is the *cause* for LLVM "being the only sustainable way forward". Rather, it's simply what showed me that this was the case. Let me be more clear. First when I said "traction and support", I wasn't referring to the Rust user base, but rather the number of *paid* developers[1] that Mozilla has working on the Rust project. Besides the core team, they also seem to be willing to also hire programmers on a contract basis to work one certain aspects of the toolchain (see for example: https://michaelwoerister.github.io/2014/02/28/mozilla-contract.html). But more importantly: when I finally started looking into Rust, was also what caused me to look into LLVM properly, particularly by subscribing the LLVM weekly newsletter. And that's when I gradually realized all the work LLVM having done, with so many people working on it. The recent news that Microsoft is going to work on a LLVM based compiler (http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/04/14/1529210/microsoft-starts-working-on-an-llvm-based-compiler-for-net), is another sign of this tidal wave we are seeing in the horizon: the future for non-proprietary languages is to be based on LLVM or GCC, or they won't be able to compete. And toolchain always wins. If won't matter if the language is superior. [1]: Note the point here isn't that paid developers are better than volunteer ones, the point they will usually will have more time to work on things than volunteer. The point is about the time and effort they are able to dedicate, not that they are paid per se. -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 05/06/2015 21:41, Bruno Medeiros wrote: But more importantly: when I finally started looking into Rust, was also what caused me to look into LLVM properly, particularly by subscribing the LLVM weekly newsletter. And that's when I gradually realized all the work LLVM having done, with so many people working on it. Some things I forgot to add: It's not just the amount of resources they have, but also the direction they are going to. In particular, unlike GCC, they are not shying away from Windows and are doing a lot of work to support it natively (not just compiling obviously, but linking with Visual Studio artifacts, and Windows debugging). Once that work matures, I reckon other toolchains will just be left in the dust. (Windows native support is not the only reason LLVM is so promising - but it is the only one I could think of, at the moment, that could be considered a hard blocker for phasing out the DM backend) -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 20:41:39 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: And toolchain always wins. If won't matter if the language is superior. Yes, official support for IOS and Android already in Rust, as far as I know. Toolchain for Rust created MUCH faster than D. D is a very good language, but because of the confrontation turns tolchain not `Rust vs D`, and `Digital Mars vs Mozilla` :) The situation can be dramatically reversed in favor of the D: Digital Mars + Google = Win We need some way to attract a large company to develop toolchain for D. Is it really impossible...
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 20:23:17 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. Why is that? A first test release does not seem to be further away than, say, full rangeification of Phobos. Answered earlier in the thread: http://forum.dlang.org/post/mkibq1$aj9$1...@digitalmars.com
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 at 03:41:13 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 20:23:17 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. Why is that? A first test release does not seem to be further away than, say, full rangeification of Phobos. Answered earlier in the thread: http://forum.dlang.org/post/mkibq1$aj9$1...@digitalmars.com That's not a full answer. I worked with Daniel to get LDC to successfully compile DDMD the Saturday after DConf, which is part of the reason why we can confidently make the 20% claim in the first place (i.e., be sure that is not a C++ vs D issue). Still, I'm confident that getting a LDC release ready would be less work than, say, properly refactoring all of Phobos to avoid allocations by using ranges. Sorry if I appear a bit grumpy, but even though recently a number of people have been clamoring for more focus on high-impact, strategically important work, not a single one of them has showed up at the doorsteps of GDC/LDC with any patches so far. This strikes me as rather schizophrenic and dishonest, especially given that the same people are quick to mention the importance of those compilers in other contexts. Either that, or they seem to maintain the conception that DMD is somehow a viable option for performance-critical code. In the latter case, I don't have much hope for D in the long term, given that this would imply that decisions are made involving an alarming level of delusional double-think. - David
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 20:54:00 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: That's not a full answer. I worked with Daniel to get LDC to successfully compile DDMD the Saturday after DConf, which is part of the reason why we can confidently make the 20% claim in the first place (i.e., be sure that is not a C++ vs D issue). And who will help GDC port under DDMD? It seems to me that GDC, LDC and need serious support.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/9/15 1:53 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: On Saturday, 6 June 2015 at 03:41:13 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 20:23:17 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:14:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: As much as I want it, ddmd seems to not be happening for 2.068 because of, simply put, insufficient resources. Why is that? A first test release does not seem to be further away than, say, full rangeification of Phobos. Answered earlier in the thread: http://forum.dlang.org/post/mkibq1$aj9$1...@digitalmars.com That's not a full answer. I worked with Daniel to get LDC to successfully compile DDMD the Saturday after DConf, which is part of the reason why we can confidently make the 20% claim in the first place (i.e., be sure that is not a C++ vs D issue). Still, I'm confident that getting a LDC release ready would be less work than, say, properly refactoring all of Phobos to avoid allocations by using ranges. Yah, well, both need doing. Sorry if I appear a bit grumpy, but even though recently a number of people have been clamoring for more focus on high-impact, strategically important work, not a single one of them has showed up at the doorsteps of GDC/LDC with any patches so far. This strikes me as rather schizophrenic and dishonest, especially given that the same people are quick to mention the importance of those compilers in other contexts. Either that, or they seem to maintain the conception that DMD is somehow a viable option for performance-critical code. In the latter case, I don't have much hope for D in the long term, given that this would imply that decisions are made involving an alarming level of delusional double-think. Welcome to my world, we have a table for you right here, sir. The point is there, just a couple of things that don't sit well: "schizophrenic", "dishonest", "delusional". What's at work here is simple psychology applied to normal and well-meaning human beings, not scheming sociopaths. Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/9/2015 1:53 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: Sorry if I appear a bit grumpy, but even though recently a number of people have been clamoring for more focus on high-impact, strategically important work, not a single one of them has showed up at the doorsteps of GDC/LDC with any patches so far. This is what we sign up for when working on open source software. I don't sit here only writing fun stuff, I work on the dirty work that nobody else wants to do, but is critical. I've been pushing for rangification of Phobos for probably 2 years now, and essentially nothing happened. It has to be done, so I do it myself. It's just how it is when there isn't paid staff one can direct. This strikes me as rather schizophrenic and dishonest, especially given that the same people are quick to mention the importance of those compilers in other contexts. Either that, or they seem to maintain the conception that DMD is somehow a viable option for performance-critical code. In the latter case, I don't have much hope for D in the long term, given that this would imply that decisions are made involving an alarming level of delusional double-think. We wouldn't have had a Win64 version of D without DMD.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 01:21:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: We wouldn't have had a Win64 version of D without DMD. There's a 64 bit version of LDC-MSVC right on LDC's github page, does it not work?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/9/2015 6:25 PM, weaselcat wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 01:21:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: We wouldn't have had a Win64 version of D without DMD. There's a 64 bit version of LDC-MSVC right on LDC's github page, does it not work? Recently it did not exist, but Win64 had become critical to D's future.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 02:25:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/9/2015 6:25 PM, weaselcat wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 01:21:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: We wouldn't have had a Win64 version of D without DMD. There's a 64 bit version of LDC-MSVC right on LDC's github page, does it not work? Recently it did not exist, but Win64 had become critical to D's future. Just out of curiosity, if ldc or gdc was able to bring their compile times down, would you ever consider dropping support for dmd?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 20:54:00 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: Sorry if I appear a bit grumpy, but even though recently a number of people have been clamoring for more focus on high-impact, strategically important work, not a single one of them has showed up at the doorsteps of GDC/LDC with any patches so far. This strikes me as rather schizophrenic and dishonest, especially given that the same people are quick to mention the importance of those compilers in other contexts. Either that, or they seem to maintain the conception that DMD is somehow a viable option for performance-critical code. In the latter case, I don't have much hope for D in the long term, given that this would imply that decisions are made involving an alarming level of delusional double-think. I think that a lot of the people asking for a 2.067 LDC are just users of D, and (I am including myself in this group) a lot of those people don't know the first thing about LLVM or good complier design in general. While it may seem dishonest for people to ask for these things and not help, keep in mind that the vast majority of programmers are not even able to help.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 10/06/2015 4:44 p.m., Jack Stouffer wrote: On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 at 20:54:00 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: Sorry if I appear a bit grumpy, but even though recently a number of people have been clamoring for more focus on high-impact, strategically important work, not a single one of them has showed up at the doorsteps of GDC/LDC with any patches so far. This strikes me as rather schizophrenic and dishonest, especially given that the same people are quick to mention the importance of those compilers in other contexts. Either that, or they seem to maintain the conception that DMD is somehow a viable option for performance-critical code. In the latter case, I don't have much hope for D in the long term, given that this would imply that decisions are made involving an alarming level of delusional double-think. I think that a lot of the people asking for a 2.067 LDC are just users of D, and (I am including myself in this group) a lot of those people don't know the first thing about LLVM or good complier design in general. While it may seem dishonest for people to ask for these things and not help, keep in mind that the vast majority of programmers are not even able to help. I for one would love to help. But I barely understand X86. Not to mention having to get a setup going ext. Not really worth it right now for me. Although I'd rather work on SDC instead of LDC. Primarily because well it's so shinyy. I would be happy to write a book to teach compiler development from everything from basic x86 encoding to complex optimization strategies. If only I knew it and yes I know they exist just wrong method for teaching it IMO.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 02:56:26 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 02:25:09 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/9/2015 6:25 PM, weaselcat wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 01:21:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: We wouldn't have had a Win64 version of D without DMD. There's a 64 bit version of LDC-MSVC right on LDC's github page, does it not work? Recently it did not exist, but Win64 had become critical to D's future. Just out of curiosity, if ldc or gdc was able to bring their compile times down, would you ever consider dropping support for dmd? ldc already compiles release builds faster than dmd and is well within 10-20% of dmd on debug builds. In my repeated tests, anyways.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 04:55:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: I think that a lot of the people asking for a 2.067 LDC are just users of D, and (I am including myself in this group) a lot of those people don't know the first thing about LLVM or good complier design in general. While it may seem dishonest for people to ask for these things and not help, keep in mind that the vast majority of programmers are not even able to help. I for one would love to help. But I barely understand X86. Not to mention having to get a setup going ext. Not really worth it right now for me. Although I'd rather work on SDC instead of LDC. Primarily because well it's so shinyy. I would be happy to write a book to teach compiler development from everything from basic x86 encoding to complex optimization strategies. If only I knew it and yes I know they exist just wrong method for teaching it IMO. Lately, I've been listening to a playlist of interview, presentations and other thing involving Elon Musk. The playlist is hours long and I'm listening to it while doing other things. After selling paypal, Musk wanted to use part of his money to revive the desire to explore space. What he plan to do is to send a plant on Mars, a very symbolic stunt that would, he hopes, renew the interest in space exploration, maybe increase NASA funding or whatnot. Thing is, he doesn't know about space that much. He has a physic major working on batteries, and then went to have a payment processing company. So he could have said, like you guys, "well I don't know much about space/compiler let's wait for others to make things happen". But nope, he went to talk to space specialists, engineer and scientists, and then, went got in touch with some Russian to buy refurbished ICBM in order to start experimenting. One of the notable thing is how amazed people are that he went to buy ICBM from the russian. Well guess what, that is one of the cheapest thing that can go into space, so if you want to make something happen, that is an excellent starting point. I can continue the story with myself (because everyone knows I compare to Elon in so many ways, and he is greatly inspired by my vision and capability to make things happen). Recently I got to a point on SDC where working on the GC became an important item. Thing is, I know about compiler not memory allocator. Having low level knowledge of how the CPU operate does not provide me wisdom about what kind of algorithm and datastructure will behave nicely on a typical wokload. So I went to read tcmalloc source code, jemalloc source code, libc's malloc, I read a ton of paper about various allocators, and went after Jason Evan - one of the great perk of working for Facebook is to have all these amazing people who can make you feel like an idiot because they know so much more than you do - as to get as much of the "why" as possible. the code told me the "what/how" but that is not sufficient to get a good grasp of the matter at hand. Making things happen is not about waiting for the wisdom to fall from the sky to deliver you the deep and arcane knowledge of compiler/memory management/rocketry . It is about learning enough to get started, and then start do do thing while continuing to learn more. To get back on point, yes some task in LDC or SDC (or DMD, or GDC) require some good knowledge of compiler stuff. Obviously, these are compiler, and I'd add D compiler, which involve a certain level of complexity. But let's be honest, a good chunk of the work is not guru level compiler arcane. Most of the work is actually dumb shit that just need to be done like it is for all other software. You don't wait to know how to paint like Rembrandt to start painting. Because that will never happen. You just paint dumb shit again and again, trying to make the new shit a bit less shitty than the old shit. You do that while studying Rembrandt's techniques. And, after thousand of painting, you finally get there.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 10/06/2015 7:02 p.m., deadalnix wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 04:55:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: I think that a lot of the people asking for a 2.067 LDC are just users of D, and (I am including myself in this group) a lot of those people don't know the first thing about LLVM or good complier design in general. While it may seem dishonest for people to ask for these things and not help, keep in mind that the vast majority of programmers are not even able to help. I for one would love to help. But I barely understand X86. Not to mention having to get a setup going ext. Not really worth it right now for me. Although I'd rather work on SDC instead of LDC. Primarily because well it's so shinyy. I would be happy to write a book to teach compiler development from everything from basic x86 encoding to complex optimization strategies. If only I knew it and yes I know they exist just wrong method for teaching it IMO. Lately, I've been listening to a playlist of interview, presentations and other thing involving Elon Musk. The playlist is hours long and I'm listening to it while doing other things. After selling paypal, Musk wanted to use part of his money to revive the desire to explore space. What he plan to do is to send a plant on Mars, a very symbolic stunt that would, he hopes, renew the interest in space exploration, maybe increase NASA funding or whatnot. Thing is, he doesn't know about space that much. He has a physic major working on batteries, and then went to have a payment processing company. So he could have said, like you guys, "well I don't know much about space/compiler let's wait for others to make things happen". But nope, he went to talk to space specialists, engineer and scientists, and then, went got in touch with some Russian to buy refurbished ICBM in order to start experimenting. One of the notable thing is how amazed people are that he went to buy ICBM from the russian. Well guess what, that is one of the cheapest thing that can go into space, so if you want to make something happen, that is an excellent starting point. I can continue the story with myself (because everyone knows I compare to Elon in so many ways, and he is greatly inspired by my vision and capability to make things happen). Recently I got to a point on SDC where working on the GC became an important item. Thing is, I know about compiler not memory allocator. Having low level knowledge of how the CPU operate does not provide me wisdom about what kind of algorithm and datastructure will behave nicely on a typical wokload. So I went to read tcmalloc source code, jemalloc source code, libc's malloc, I read a ton of paper about various allocators, and went after Jason Evan - one of the great perk of working for Facebook is to have all these amazing people who can make you feel like an idiot because they know so much more than you do - as to get as much of the "why" as possible. the code told me the "what/how" but that is not sufficient to get a good grasp of the matter at hand. Making things happen is not about waiting for the wisdom to fall from the sky to deliver you the deep and arcane knowledge of compiler/memory management/rocketry . It is about learning enough to get started, and then start do do thing while continuing to learn more. To get back on point, yes some task in LDC or SDC (or DMD, or GDC) require some good knowledge of compiler stuff. Obviously, these are compiler, and I'd add D compiler, which involve a certain level of complexity. But let's be honest, a good chunk of the work is not guru level compiler arcane. Most of the work is actually dumb shit that just need to be done like it is for all other software. You don't wait to know how to paint like Rembrandt to start painting. Because that will never happen. You just paint dumb shit again and again, trying to make the new shit a bit less shitty than the old shit. You do that while studying Rembrandt's techniques. And, after thousand of painting, you finally get there. I'm well aware. I've been hammering out over long term to learn the underlying technologies. For example writing a PE-COFF linker. My experience is well ugh lets just say, if something seems hard and almost impossible maybe something isn't quite right. Unfortunately I'm in a war of attrition trying to learn x86 and friends. And its a long one!
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 10 June 2015 at 09:11, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 10/06/2015 7:02 p.m., deadalnix wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 04:55:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: >> >>> I think that a lot of the people asking for a 2.067 LDC are just users of D, and (I am including myself in this group) a lot of those people don't know the first thing about LLVM or good complier design in general. While it may seem dishonest for people to ask for these things and not help, keep in mind that the vast majority of programmers are not even able to help. >>> >>> I for one would love to help. But I barely understand X86. Not to >>> mention having to get a setup going ext. Not really worth it right now >>> for me. >>> >>> Although I'd rather work on SDC instead of LDC. Primarily because well >>> it's so shinyy. >>> >>> I would be happy to write a book to teach compiler development from >>> everything from basic x86 encoding to complex optimization strategies. >>> If only I knew it and yes I know they exist just wrong method for >>> teaching it IMO. >>> >> >> Lately, I've been listening to a playlist of interview, presentations >> and other thing involving Elon Musk. The playlist is hours long and I'm >> listening to it while doing other things. >> >> After selling paypal, Musk wanted to use part of his money to revive the >> desire to explore space. What he plan to do is to send a plant on Mars, >> a very symbolic stunt that would, he hopes, renew the interest in space >> exploration, maybe increase NASA funding or whatnot. >> >> Thing is, he doesn't know about space that much. He has a physic major >> working on batteries, and then went to have a payment processing >> company. So he could have said, like you guys, "well I don't know much >> about space/compiler let's wait for others to make things happen". But >> nope, he went to talk to space specialists, engineer and scientists, and >> then, went got in touch with some Russian to buy refurbished ICBM in >> order to start experimenting. >> >> One of the notable thing is how amazed people are that he went to buy >> ICBM from the russian. Well guess what, that is one of the cheapest >> thing that can go into space, so if you want to make something happen, >> that is an excellent starting point. >> >> I can continue the story with myself (because everyone knows I compare >> to Elon in so many ways, and he is greatly inspired by my vision and >> capability to make things happen). Recently I got to a point on SDC >> where working on the GC became an important item. Thing is, I know about >> compiler not memory allocator. Having low level knowledge of how the CPU >> operate does not provide me wisdom about what kind of algorithm and >> datastructure will behave nicely on a typical wokload. >> >> So I went to read tcmalloc source code, jemalloc source code, libc's >> malloc, I read a ton of paper about various allocators, and went after >> Jason Evan - one of the great perk of working for Facebook is to have >> all these amazing people who can make you feel like an idiot because >> they know so much more than you do - as to get as much of the "why" as >> possible. the code told me the "what/how" but that is not sufficient to >> get a good grasp of the matter at hand. >> >> Making things happen is not about waiting for the wisdom to fall from >> the sky to deliver you the deep and arcane knowledge of compiler/memory >> management/rocketry . It is about learning enough to get started, and >> then start do do thing while continuing to learn more. >> >> To get back on point, yes some task in LDC or SDC (or DMD, or GDC) >> require some good knowledge of compiler stuff. Obviously, these are >> compiler, and I'd add D compiler, which involve a certain level of >> complexity. But let's be honest, a good chunk of the work is not guru >> level compiler arcane. Most of the work is actually dumb shit that just >> need to be done like it is for all other software. >> >> You don't wait to know how to paint like Rembrandt to start painting. >> Because that will never happen. You just paint dumb shit again and >> again, trying to make the new shit a bit less shitty than the old shit. >> You do that while studying Rembrandt's techniques. And, after thousand >> of painting, you finally get there. >> > > I'm well aware. > I've been hammering out over long term to learn the underlying > technologies. > For example writing a PE-COFF linker. > > My experience is well ugh lets just say, if something seems hard and > almost impossible maybe something isn't quite right. > > Unfortunately I'm in a war of attrition trying to learn x86 and friends. > And its a long one! > Good luck with that. :-)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 10 June 2015 at 09:02, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 04:55:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: > >> I think that a lot of the people asking for a 2.067 LDC are just users >>> of D, and (I am including myself in this group) a lot of those people >>> don't know the first thing about LLVM or good complier design in >>> general. While it may seem dishonest for people to ask for these things >>> and not help, keep in mind that the vast majority of programmers are not >>> even able to help. >>> >> >> I for one would love to help. But I barely understand X86. Not to mention >> having to get a setup going ext. Not really worth it right now for me. >> >> Although I'd rather work on SDC instead of LDC. Primarily because well >> it's so shinyy. >> >> I would be happy to write a book to teach compiler development from >> everything from basic x86 encoding to complex optimization strategies. If >> only I knew it and yes I know they exist just wrong method for teaching it >> IMO. >> > > Lately, I've been listening to a playlist of interview, presentations and > other thing involving Elon Musk. The playlist is hours long and I'm > listening to it while doing other things. > > After selling paypal, Musk wanted to use part of his money to revive the > desire to explore space. What he plan to do is to send a plant on Mars, a > very symbolic stunt that would, he hopes, renew the interest in space > exploration, maybe increase NASA funding or whatnot. > > Thing is, he doesn't know about space that much. He has a physic major > working on batteries, and then went to have a payment processing company. > So he could have said, like you guys, "well I don't know much about > space/compiler let's wait for others to make things happen". But nope, he > went to talk to space specialists, engineer and scientists, and then, went > got in touch with some Russian to buy refurbished ICBM in order to start > experimenting. > > One of the notable thing is how amazed people are that he went to buy ICBM > from the russian. Well guess what, that is one of the cheapest thing that > can go into space, so if you want to make something happen, that is an > excellent starting point. > > I can continue the story with myself (because everyone knows I compare to > Elon in so many ways, and he is greatly inspired by my vision and > capability to make things happen). Recently I got to a point on SDC where > working on the GC became an important item. Thing is, I know about compiler > not memory allocator. Having low level knowledge of how the CPU operate > does not provide me wisdom about what kind of algorithm and datastructure > will behave nicely on a typical wokload. > > So I went to read tcmalloc source code, jemalloc source code, libc's > malloc, I read a ton of paper about various allocators, and went after > Jason Evan - one of the great perk of working for Facebook is to have all > these amazing people who can make you feel like an idiot because they know > so much more than you do - as to get as much of the "why" as possible. the > code told me the "what/how" but that is not sufficient to get a good grasp > of the matter at hand. > > Making things happen is not about waiting for the wisdom to fall from the > sky to deliver you the deep and arcane knowledge of compiler/memory > management/rocketry . It is about learning enough to get started, and then > start do do thing while continuing to learn more. > > To get back on point, yes some task in LDC or SDC (or DMD, or GDC) require > some good knowledge of compiler stuff. Obviously, these are compiler, and > I'd add D compiler, which involve a certain level of complexity. But let's > be honest, a good chunk of the work is not guru level compiler arcane. Most > of the work is actually dumb shit that just need to be done like it is for > all other software. > > +1 The current 'arcane' job being done in my camp is encapulating related codegen routines under a single umbrella.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 10/06/2015 7:35 p.m., Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 09:11, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d mailto:digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>> wrote: On 10/06/2015 7:02 p.m., deadalnix wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 04:55:43 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote: I think that a lot of the people asking for a 2.067 LDC are just users of D, and (I am including myself in this group) a lot of those people don't know the first thing about LLVM or good complier design in general. While it may seem dishonest for people to ask for these things and not help, keep in mind that the vast majority of programmers are not even able to help. I for one would love to help. But I barely understand X86. Not to mention having to get a setup going ext. Not really worth it right now for me. Although I'd rather work on SDC instead of LDC. Primarily because well it's so shinyy. I would be happy to write a book to teach compiler development from everything from basic x86 encoding to complex optimization strategies. If only I knew it and yes I know they exist just wrong method for teaching it IMO. Lately, I've been listening to a playlist of interview, presentations and other thing involving Elon Musk. The playlist is hours long and I'm listening to it while doing other things. After selling paypal, Musk wanted to use part of his money to revive the desire to explore space. What he plan to do is to send a plant on Mars, a very symbolic stunt that would, he hopes, renew the interest in space exploration, maybe increase NASA funding or whatnot. Thing is, he doesn't know about space that much. He has a physic major working on batteries, and then went to have a payment processing company. So he could have said, like you guys, "well I don't know much about space/compiler let's wait for others to make things happen". But nope, he went to talk to space specialists, engineer and scientists, and then, went got in touch with some Russian to buy refurbished ICBM in order to start experimenting. One of the notable thing is how amazed people are that he went to buy ICBM from the russian. Well guess what, that is one of the cheapest thing that can go into space, so if you want to make something happen, that is an excellent starting point. I can continue the story with myself (because everyone knows I compare to Elon in so many ways, and he is greatly inspired by my vision and capability to make things happen). Recently I got to a point on SDC where working on the GC became an important item. Thing is, I know about compiler not memory allocator. Having low level knowledge of how the CPU operate does not provide me wisdom about what kind of algorithm and datastructure will behave nicely on a typical wokload. So I went to read tcmalloc source code, jemalloc source code, libc's malloc, I read a ton of paper about various allocators, and went after Jason Evan - one of the great perk of working for Facebook is to have all these amazing people who can make you feel like an idiot because they know so much more than you do - as to get as much of the "why" as possible. the code told me the "what/how" but that is not sufficient to get a good grasp of the matter at hand. Making things happen is not about waiting for the wisdom to fall from the sky to deliver you the deep and arcane knowledge of compiler/memory management/rocketry . It is about learning enough to get started, and then start do do thing while continuing to learn more. To get back on point, yes some task in LDC or SDC (or DMD, or GDC) require some good knowledge of compiler stuff. Obviously, these are compiler, and I'd add D compiler, which involve a certain level of complexity. But let's be honest, a good chunk of the work is not guru level compiler arcane. Most of the work is actually dumb shit that just need to be done like it is for all other software. You don't wait to know how to paint like Rembrandt to start painting. Because that will never happen. You just paint dumb shit again and again, trying to make the new shit a bit less shitty than the
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 05/06/2015 21:29, extrawurst wrote: On Friday, 5 June 2015 at 19:02:15 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: On 01/06/2015 20:47, weaselcat wrote: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, if ldc/gdc not being 2.067 stops a DDMD release due to dmd's generated code being too slow, maybe it's time to phase dmd out ;) It's past the time. The traction and support that Rust gained, even before 1.0, showed that having your primary toolchain based on GCC or LLVM is the only sustainable way forward (and even of those two, GCC might not be able to keep with LLVM). Nice work on the RustDT IDE btw. (https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rustdt-0-1-0-released-a-new-eclipse-rust-ide) Thanks! (it already has more likes/stars in Github than DDT, even though it's nowhere near as feature full :S ) -- Bruno Medeiros https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 11:36:56 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Thanks! (it already has more likes/stars in Github than DDT, even though it's nowhere near as feature full :S ) It seems to me that many still do not understand what the Rust :) Many have not seen Lisp, so they think that Rust is something innovative. At least from the syndrome of angle brackets and other syntactic shaluhi its developers are not disposed of, but only made matters worse. This language is not better than the same C++.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 17:04:56 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 11:36:56 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote: Thanks! (it already has more likes/stars in Github than DDT, even though it's nowhere near as feature full :S ) It seems to me that many still do not understand what the Rust :) Many have not seen Lisp, so they think that Rust is something innovative. At least from the syndrome of angle brackets and other syntactic shaluhi its developers are not disposed of, but only made matters worse. This language is not better than the same C++. Sorry, but this sounds like extremely uneducated opinion. Rust has a very clearly defined set of values and goals. It is designed for large scale projects that need to combine high performance with maintainability and does that at cost of learning curve and rapid prototyping. Very strict and punishing compiler (with a pedantic and complicated type system) ensures that it is much harder to make accidental subtle mistakes. Even generics are completely type-checked (via traits). (yes, I did spend quite some time playing with it) There are few important features missing compared to D, i.e. static reflection and metaprogramming can only be done via AST macros. But primarily the main issue I see is that there is no reason to pick Rust for a project with less than 50 KLOC unless you want to learn. Productivity feels very low. Still, saying that it is "same C++" is absolutely missing the point.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Per http://erdani.com/d/downloads.daily.png, the 28-day moving average of daily dmd downloads is in pronounced decline following a peak at the 2.067 release. It is possible that the recent release of Rust 1.0 has caused that, shifting drive-by experimenters to it. We need to act on this on multiple fronts. 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. 2. It's an equally big bummer that "This Week in D" failed to be there on Sunday night. I completely understand Adam's overhead, what with his still traveling and all, but the bottom line is if it's not every Sunday it's not steady and if it's not steady it's not. Again, in retrospect it seems we need backup plans for when the protagonist of whatever important activity is unable to carry it. Who'd like to double Adam on this? 3. We've just had a good conference with solid content, but if our collective actions are to be interpreted, we did our best to be as stealth as possible. Please consider writing blogs, articles, tweets, posts, related to all that stuff. Speakers in particular should consider converting their good work into articles. Programmer news sites are full of Rust-related stuff; we must respond in kind with great D content. All of us who have an interest in D to succeed must understand there is also a proportional sense of duty. If you can do X and don't, it can be safely assumed X will just not get done at all. Which means whatever you can do, please just do it, do it now, and stay with it until it's done. Thanks, Andrei Hi Andrei Regarding the Dconf videos. I have only seen those on youtube. And the problem with youtube is that videos are not structured chronologically. I see two options a youtube playlist or an html page that does so here at dlang.org. BD
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Per http://erdani.com/d/downloads.daily.png, the 28-day moving average of daily dmd downloads is in pronounced decline following a peak at the 2.067 release. It is possible that the recent release of Rust 1.0 has caused that, shifting drive-by experimenters to it. We need to act on this on multiple fronts. 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Andrei I can do that. Count me in. BD
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/10/15 10:36 AM, Binarydepth wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Per http://erdani.com/d/downloads.daily.png, the 28-day moving average of daily dmd downloads is in pronounced decline following a peak at the 2.067 release. It is possible that the recent release of Rust 1.0 has caused that, shifting drive-by experimenters to it. We need to act on this on multiple fronts. 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Andrei I can do that. Count me in. Thanks, you're a little late :o). That's been done, and we're waiting for the official videos now. -- Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 18:04:45 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 6/10/15 10:36 AM, Binarydepth wrote: On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 18:11:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: Per http://erdani.com/d/downloads.daily.png, the 28-day moving average of daily dmd downloads is in pronounced decline following a peak at the 2.067 release. It is possible that the recent release of Rust 1.0 has caused that, shifting drive-by experimenters to it. We need to act on this on multiple fronts. 1. It's a big bummer that nothing has happened with chopping up the videos over the weekend. Right now DConf is three 6-hour blobs of unstructured footage. John has warned us he might not have broadband access to do so during his travels. In retrospect, what we should have done was to immediately arrange that John gives access to the videos to someone willing and able to do the postprocessing. Andrei I can do that. Count me in. Thanks, you're a little late :o). That's been done, and we're waiting for the official videos now. -- Andrei Good! And what do you think about structuring the videos in a youtube playlist or HTML page here on dlang.org ?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/10/15 11:10 AM, Binarydepth wrote: Good! And what do you think about structuring the videos in a youtube playlist or HTML page here on dlang.org ? That'd be great to do on dconf.org with the final videos. -- Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 18:10:55 UTC, Binarydepth wrote: Good! And what do you think about structuring the videos in a youtube playlist or HTML page here on dlang.org ? I'm also writing up articles about each talk on the this week in D btw: http://arsdnet.net/this-week-in-d/jun-07.html Wednesday ones are done, I'm trying to finish the rest by this weekend.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 17:20:12 UTC, Dicebot wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 17:04:56 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: It seems to me that many still do not understand what the Rust :) Many have not seen Lisp, so they think that Rust is something innovative. At least from the syndrome of angle brackets and other syntactic shaluhi its developers are not disposed of, but only made matters worse. This language is not better than the same C++. Sorry, but this sounds like extremely uneducated opinion. Yes, it is. I have not had time to spend some time playing with Rust, so my opinion about Rust is very bad. Rust has a very clearly defined set of values and goals. It is designed for large scale projects that need to combine high performance with maintainability and does that at cost of learning curve and rapid prototyping. Very strict and punishing compiler (with a pedantic and complicated type system) ensures that it is much harder to make accidental subtle mistakes. Even generics are completely type-checked (via traits). OK. But Rust better than the same minimalist Go? Besides, there is no garbage collection Rust. This, at least, not to date. No bounds checking of arrays. (yes, I did spend quite some time playing with it) I also plan to play with Rust, but a little later. There are few important features missing compared to D, i.e. static reflection and metaprogramming can only be done via AST macros. But primarily the main issue I see is that there is no reason to pick Rust for a project with less than 50 KLOC unless you want to learn. Productivity feels very low. Well, if Rust created for huge projects, why these macros? I fear that macros are simply not needed in C-family languages. The macros help in D? Write unbearable code? :D Still, saying that it is "same C++" is absolutely missing the point. Yes, I admit that it is very incorrect: so speaks of Rust, but in this case it is no better than Go from Google. The Rust better than Go in large projects?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 17:20:12 UTC, Dicebot wrote: It is designed for large scale projects that need to combine high performance with maintainability and does that at cost of learning curve and rapid prototyping. High performance is a LDC, but the problem is that it is too little invested. He lags behind in the development of the DMD.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 22:01:22 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: No bounds checking of arrays. Huh? Whatever gave you that impression? Well, if Rust created for huge projects, why these macros? I fear that macros are simply not needed in C-family languages. The macros help in D? Write unbearable code? :D They're a lot cleaner than C's macros. AFAIK, Rust's writef() equivalent is implemented with them.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 08:54:54 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 22:01:22 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: No bounds checking of arrays. Huh? Whatever gave you that impression? Well, if Rust created for huge projects, why these macros? I fear that macros are simply not needed in C-family languages. The macros help in D? Write unbearable code? :D They're a lot cleaner than C's macros. AFAIK, Rust's writef() equivalent is implemented with them. Rust's macros make me wish mixins weren't so ugly to use, or we had proper AST macros.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 17:04:56 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: It seems to me that many still do not understand what the Rust :) Many have not seen Lisp, so they think that Rust is something innovative. At least from the syndrome of angle brackets and other syntactic shaluhi its developers are not disposed of, but only made matters worse. This language is not better than the same C++. I have seen and used lisp, still I think that Rust is innovative. Namely the combination of very good typesystem, best to date (because fully compiler-verified) resource management and AST macros is innovative. But what I like the most about is that it wasn't created in a stike of genius by a guy in a basement, but instead by continuous refinement of many ideas with strong desire to keep the language small and consistent.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 08:54:54 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 22:01:22 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: No bounds checking of arrays. Huh? Whatever gave you that impression? Oops. It turns out that bounds checking is really there. But I think that before this really was not in Rust. Or I'm wrong? Well, if Rust created for huge projects, why these macros? I fear that macros are simply not needed in C-family languages. The macros help in D? Write unbearable code? :D They're a lot cleaner than C's macros. AFAIK, Rust's writef() equivalent is implemented with them. And yet I'm not sure that they really need, for easily emulated by using mixins. http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jvaizdvgzwqqpxqji...@beta.forum.dlang.org Can anybody give an example of macros Rust which cannot be emulated by using mixins?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 08:59:18 UTC, weaselcat wrote: On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 08:54:54 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote: Rust's macros make me wish mixins weren't so ugly to use, or we had proper AST macros. Perhaps much will change, if D is added to the symbol $ to replace values in the mixin: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DanielKeep/shfmt
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 09:12:09 UTC, QAston wrote: I have seen and used lisp, still I think that Rust is innovative. Namely the combination of very good typesystem, best to date (because fully compiler-verified) resource management and AST macros is innovative. But what I like the most about is that it wasn't created in a stike of genius by a guy in a basement, but instead by continuous refinement of many ideas with strong desire to keep the language small and consistent. Yes, it is still strong arguments in favor of Rust. But D has a garbage collector and there is no syndrome of angle brackets. Unfortunately, I still don't know Rust templates, so nothing to say about them. Do templates Rust is better than D?
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 13:16:13 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: Yes, it is still strong arguments in favor of Rust. But D has a garbage collector and there is no syndrome of angle brackets. Unfortunately, I still don't know Rust templates, so nothing to say about them. Do templates Rust is better than D? It's a matter of taste and I won't advocate for Rust on D forums. Syntax doesn't bother me at all as long as it's consistent and in both D and Rust it is. For me simple templates + simple macros are clearer than complicated templates + ctfe + mixins. There are tradeoffs there, with ctfe being an optimization at the expense of build time. On the other hand dmd is much much faster than the Rust compiler which doesn't do ctfe. As for GC vs Lifecycles - there are well known tradeoffs there, but it's now at least possible to have lifecycle semantics as safe as GC semantics at the expense of fighting the compiler a bit.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 13:35:25 UTC, QAston wrote: It's a matter of taste and I won't advocate for Rust on D forums. It is not required. But it would be nice if you could post a topic in DLearn like this just about Rust :) http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ujatnyfraqahrmfok...@forum.dlang.org Syntax doesn't bother me at all as long as it's consistent and in both D and Rust it is. For me, the syntax is very important. I want my code could understand everything, not just programmers superclass. It's no secret that many people avoid encounters with Lisp because of its syntax. For me simple templates + simple macros are clearer than complicated templates + ctfe + mixins. Yes, probably, it's hard to disagree. There are tradeoffs there, with ctfe being an optimization at the expense of build time. On the other hand dmd is much much faster than the Rust compiler which doesn't do ctfe. Yes, but LDC will overtake the Rust compiler and without CTFE. In addition, the compiler Rust also based on LLVM. So to compare DMD and Rust compiler does not make sense.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 13:35:25 UTC, QAston wrote: For me simple templates + simple macros are clearer than complicated templates + ctfe + mixins. There are tradeoffs there, with ctfe being an optimization at the expense of build time. On the other hand dmd is much much faster than the Rust compiler which doesn't do ctfe. all three D compilers are faster than rustc, it's honestly very slow and was one of my major gripes with rust - I get distracted easily and like short build times : )
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 13:16:13 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: Do templates Rust is better than D? Those are considerably less powerful: - can only have type arguments - no variadic argument list support - no arbitrary condition constraints (thus only partial duck typing support) On the other hand they have one important advantage: all type arguments must comply to one or more trairs and thus bodies of generics are checked before institation. You are only allowed to call methods and operations of generic arguments that are defined in relevan trait. This is huge win for code hygiene compared to D. Any sort of more advanced meta-programming things can only be done via AST macros which is currently the biggest downside in my eyes when it comes to features. Though quite some people like that.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 13:35:25 UTC, QAston wrote: For me simple templates + simple macros are clearer than complicated templates + ctfe + mixins. My experience of explaining those concepts to other people indicates otherwise. D templates and mixins are dirty but also very simple concepts that pretty much any new programmers gets quickly and intuitively, learning how to do more complicated magic in a small steps. Macros are just never really simple as they operate within AST domain and programmers not familiar with language developer tend to be more confortable with thinking on the source code level. It is a more robust power tool for experienced developers but that does not feel like a good justification.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 15:03:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Those are considerably less powerful:
- can only have type arguments
- no variadic argument list support
- no arbitrary condition constraints (thus only partial duck
typing support)
On the other hand they have one important advantage: all type
arguments must comply to one or more trairs and thus bodies of
generics are checked before institation. You are only allowed
to call methods and operations of generic arguments that are
defined in relevan trait. This is huge win for code hygiene
compared to D.
Any sort of more advanced meta-programming things can only be
done via AST macros which is currently the biggest downside in
my eyes when it comes to features. Though quite some people
like that.
The fact that there is no support variadiс arguments, it is
really negative.
It is possible that Walter and Andrei against macro because of
this:
macro_rules! o_O {
(
$(
$x:expr; [ $( $y:expr ),* ]
);*
) => {
&[ $($( $x + $y ),*),* ]
}
}
fn main() {
let a: &[i32]
= o_O!(10; [1, 2, 3];
20; [4, 5, 6]);
assert_eq!(a, [11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26]);
}
It looks disgusting! ;)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 15:08:48 UTC, Dicebot wrote: My experience of explaining those concepts to other people indicates otherwise. D templates and mixins are dirty but also very simple concepts that pretty much any new programmers gets quickly and intuitively, learning how to do more complicated magic in a small steps. I totally agree with that, because I checked it on myself. I am a long time did not understand C++ templates, but I pretty quickly realized templates D, which helped me to fully understand the templates C++. As it turned out, I'm not the only one :)
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/11/15 9:33 AM, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 15:03:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Those are considerably less powerful:
- can only have type arguments
- no variadic argument list support
- no arbitrary condition constraints (thus only partial duck typing
support)
On the other hand they have one important advantage: all type
arguments must comply to one or more trairs and thus bodies of
generics are checked before institation. You are only allowed to call
methods and operations of generic arguments that are defined in
relevan trait. This is huge win for code hygiene compared to D.
Any sort of more advanced meta-programming things can only be done via
AST macros which is currently the biggest downside in my eyes when it
comes to features. Though quite some people like that.
The fact that there is no support variadiс arguments, it is really
negative.
It is possible that Walter and Andrei against macro because of this:
macro_rules! o_O {
(
$(
$x:expr; [ $( $y:expr ),* ]
);*
) => {
&[ $($( $x + $y ),*),* ]
}
}
fn main() {
let a: &[i32]
= o_O!(10; [1, 2, 3];
20; [4, 5, 6]);
assert_eq!(a, [11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26]);
}
It looks disgusting! ;)
Is that actual Rust code that compiles and runs? -- Andrei
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 17:41:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
It is possible that Walter and Andrei against macro because of
this:
macro_rules! o_O {
(
$(
$x:expr; [ $( $y:expr ),* ]
);*
) => {
&[ $($( $x + $y ),*),* ]
}
}
fn main() {
let a: &[i32]
= o_O!(10; [1, 2, 3];
20; [4, 5, 6]);
assert_eq!(a, [11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26]);
}
It looks disgusting! ;)
Is that actual Rust code that compiles and runs? -- Andrei
Yes, this code is working. I took it here:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/macros.html#repetition
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/11/2015 8:03 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On the other hand they have one important advantage: all type arguments must
comply to one or more trairs and thus bodies of generics are checked before
institation. You are only allowed to call methods and operations of generic
arguments that are defined in relevan trait. This is huge win for code hygiene
compared to D.
On the other hand, generic bodies in D can inquire if various additional traits
are available, and then adapt:
struct S(R) if (isInputRange!R)
{
...
static if (isForwardRange!R)
{
R save()
{
auto result = this;
result.r = r.save;
return result;
}
}
...
}
This kind of thing is used extensively in Phobos generics.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 19:31:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/11/2015 8:03 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On the other hand they have one important advantage: all type
arguments must
comply to one or more trairs and thus bodies of generics are
checked before
institation. You are only allowed to call methods and
operations of generic
arguments that are defined in relevan trait. This is huge win
for code hygiene
compared to D.
On the other hand, generic bodies in D can inquire if various
additional traits are available, and then adapt:
struct S(R) if (isInputRange!R)
{
...
static if (isForwardRange!R)
{
R save()
{
auto result = this;
result.r = r.save;
return result;
}
}
...
}
This kind of thing is used extensively in Phobos generics.
It's not *quite* the same. I believe Rust traits are closer to
C++ concepts.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/11/2015 1:18 PM, Meta wrote: It's not *quite* the same. I believe Rust traits are closer to C++ concepts. I suspect C++ concepts have the same limitation.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 15:08:48 UTC, Dicebot wrote: My experience of explaining those concepts to other people indicates otherwise. D templates and mixins are dirty but also very simple concepts that pretty much any new programmers gets quickly and intuitively, learning how to do more complicated magic in a small steps. Macros are just never really simple as they operate within AST domain and programmers not familiar with language developer tend to be more confortable with thinking on the source code level. It is a more robust power tool for experienced developers but that does not feel like a good justification. I bet you don't show ranges implementation to those people, or they don't write new ones. Yes - predicates are simple and powerful combined with conditional compilation and there's even a certain elegance to that. But proper usage, for example to implement a custom range or a wrapper, is difficult as seen here on forums. Still - it's way way easier than in C++. In the end D has much more powerful compile-time capabilities (except encapsulating and manipulating syntax because of no macros; D can only encapsulate declarations). The price paid for those is in possible tooling. No analysis can be done on an arbitrary predicate to suggest you how to match it. With simple (not turing complete) macros and templates that's easy to do. It's a tradeoff, pick what you like. Rust's macros may feel difficult to undestrand exactly because they're limited and therfore can't use regular runtime APIs. There're macro systems which allow arbitrary functions creating ASTs - Lisp is an example. Yes - Lisps had ctfe before it was cool. Just like you glue strings in D using runtime API, you glue lists in Lisp using runtime API. It has the same consequences: Lisp macros can't really be checked without runtime in the background running the macros and there're no suggestions available for their usage.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 19:31:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/11/2015 8:03 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On the other hand they have one important advantage: all type
arguments must
comply to one or more trairs and thus bodies of generics are
checked before
institation. You are only allowed to call methods and
operations of generic
arguments that are defined in relevan trait. This is huge win
for code hygiene
compared to D.
On the other hand, generic bodies in D can inquire if various
additional traits are available, and then adapt:
struct S(R) if (isInputRange!R)
{
...
static if (isForwardRange!R)
{
R save()
{
auto result = this;
result.r = r.save;
return result;
}
}
...
}
This kind of thing is used extensively in Phobos generics.
That was exactly what I referred to with "no arbitrary condition
constraints (thus only partial duck typing)"
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 11/06/2015 18:48, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 17:41:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It is possible that Walter and Andrei against macro because of this:
macro_rules! o_O {
(
$(
$x:expr; [ $( $y:expr ),* ]
);*
) => {
&[ $($( $x + $y ),*),* ]
}
}
fn main() {
let a: &[i32]
= o_O!(10; [1, 2, 3];
20; [4, 5, 6]);
assert_eq!(a, [11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26]);
}
It looks disgusting! ;)
Is that actual Rust code that compiles and runs? -- Andrei
Yes, this code is working. I took it here:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/macros.html#repetition
OMG, and it's not just an obscure example someone came up with, but
actually a snippet from the official documentation!
That said, it does look a bit less crazy when looking at it with the
syntax highlighting.
--
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On Thursday, 11 June 2015 at 16:33:04 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
It is possible that Walter and Andrei against macro because of
this:
macro_rules! o_O {
(
$(
$x:expr; [ $( $y:expr ),* ]
);*
) => {
&[ $($( $x + $y ),*),* ]
}
}
fn main() {
let a: &[i32]
= o_O!(10; [1, 2, 3];
20; [4, 5, 6]);
assert_eq!(a, [11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26]);
}
It looks disgusting! ;)
This baffles me. It seems that language designer always need to
fuck up macros either by:
- Creating a new API to spawn AST, which become a burden on the
compiler development (bonus point if you expose compiler
internal).
- Creating a new syntax, preferably completely inscrutable so
you can pretend you are a guru while using it.
There is a good way to express AST in a language, and this is how
you do it for everything else in the program : you use the damn
language syntax and grammar.
On that one, LISP get it right, except that its general lack of
grammar and syntax (really, it is not that LISP has a lot of (),
it is that everything else has been removed) end up creating a
new set of problems.
It is just this const expr vs CTFE, one has now to learn a new
language to do computation at compile time (const expr) when
using the same language (CTFE) reduce the burden on the dev and
compiler writer.
Re: Daily downloads in decline
On 6/12/15 10:26 AM, deadalnix wrote: This baffles me. It seems that language designer always need to fuck up macros either by: - Creating a new API to spawn AST, which become a burden on the compiler development (bonus point if you expose compiler internal). - Creating a new syntax, preferably completely inscrutable so you can pretend you are a guru while using it. There is a good way to express AST in a language, and this is how you do it for everything else in the program : you use the damn language syntax and grammar. In their defense, there is a need for a metalanguage as well do manipulate ASTs themselves. That's why all macro systems just look a bit off. I suggest you give it a shot at defining a natural-looking macro system if you're up to something, but I suspect there are many subtleties to cope with. Andrei
