Re: "Programming in D" book is about 88% translated
On 6/28/2013 7:35 PM, Ali Çehreli wrote: Thinking that it is free enough, I had chosen this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ Just let me know if it is limiting in any way. This is just awesome! Thank you, Ali!
Re: dlibgit updated to libgit2 v0.19.0
On 6/28/2013 9:10 AM, Dicebot wrote: On Friday, 28 June 2013 at 16:00:57 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: Deimos is an overhead which provides no benefits. It was supposed to be used to make discovery easy, but discovery can be done through a wiki, or dlang.org, or an automated process (dub). Deimos provides all the usual benefits of using github for projects. I used to maintain a page with a list of links to D related projects. It regularly suffered from links going out of date, domain names being abandoned and then taken up by porn sites, projects simply disappearing, no consistent way for users to contribute to those projects, etc. I suspect with time Deimos will be completely superseeded by "dub" or whatever tool becomes standard package manager for D. However, it should not be simply discarded because: 1) right now dub is not an official dlang.org project, but Deimos is 2) it is a certain brand name which gives promises about aggregated bindings - all Deimos bindings are thin 1-to-1 reflections of their C origin. In that sense, I would have expected Deimos become part of dub registry at some point, preferrably as a separate package category. But they should not loose identity of Deimos project. https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 00:59:15 +0200, John Colvin wrote: > On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 00:10:37 UTC, Graham St Jack wrote: >> Having side-by-side comparisons of D against bash scripts and C++ >> modules had the effect of turning almost all the other team members >> into D advocates. > > Any chance we could know what team this is? (Sorry if this is common > knowledge) It is the development team at my previous workplace. I haven't asked them for permission, so I would rather not say who they are. David Bryant (the previous poster) was a member of that team though, and he will be happy to provide details.
Re: "Programming in D" book is about 88% translated
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:02:25 -0700 schrieb Ali Çehreli : > I have continued with the translation of the book. There are 82 of > the 718 pages still to be translated. (However, I still need to write > the UDA chapter.) > > Ali Nice work! BTW: The link to wiki4d on this page http://ddili.org/ders/d.en/intro.html could be updated to http://wiki.dlang.org/Editors and / or http://wiki.dlang.org/IDEs
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
I agree with your post, I just want to make a couple of minor corrections. On 6/27/2013 4:58 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Do you really think C++ took off because there are commercial implementations? I got into the C++ fray in the 1987-88 time frame. At the time, there was a great debate between C++ and Objective-C, and they were running neck-and-neck. I was casting about looking for a way to get a competitive edge with my C compiler, and investigated. Objective-C was put out by Stepstone. They wanted royalties from anyone who implemented a clone, and kept a tight fist over the licensing. C++ only existed in its AT&T cfront implementation. I wrote a letter to AT&T's lawyers, asking if I could create a C++ clone, and they phoned me up and were very nice. They said sure, and I wouldn't have to pay any license or royalties. So I went with C++. I don't really know if cfront was open source at the time or not, but I never looked at its source. I think cfront source came with a paid license for unix, but I'm not positive. Anyhow, I wound up implementing the first native C++ compiler for the PC. Directly afterward, C++ took off like a rocket. Was it because of Zortech C++? I think there's strong evidence it was. A lot of programmers turned up their noses at the peasants programming on DOS, but that's where the action was in the 1980's, and ZTC++ had no realistic competitors. You could also see the results in Usenet. Postings about C++ and O-C were neck-and-neck until ZTC++ came out, and then things tilted heavily in C++'s favor, and O-C disappeared into oblivion (later to be resurrected by Steve Jobs, but that's another tale). ZTC++ was so successful that Borland and Microsoft (according to rumor) abandoned their efforts at making a proprietary OOP C, and went with C++. ZTC++ was closed source, as were Borland's Turbo C++ and Microsoft C++. Do you think being a standardized language didn't help? C++ wasn't standardized until 1998, 10 years later. The 90's were pretty much the heyday of C++. Do you think the fact that there was a free implementation around that it supported virtually any existing platform didn't help? Do you think the fact was it was (almost) compatible with C (which was born freeish, since back then software was freely shared between universities) didn't help? ZTC++ was cheap as dirt, and at the time people didn't mind paying for compilers. Those days are over, though. People have different expectations today. No. A standard is something that was standardized by a standard committee which, ideally, have some credits to do so. C++ is standardized by ISO. I guess Walter and Andrei can give you more details, since I think they both were involved in the standardization of C++. I've attended a few ISO C++ meetings, but I never became a voting member, and have had pretty much zero influence over the direction C++ took after the 1980's. The bottom line was the open source movement was not a very significant force in the 1980's when C++ gained traction. Open source really exploded around 2000, along with the internet. I wonder if open source perhaps needed the internet in order to be viable.
Re: "Programming in D" book is about 88% translated
Am 29.06.2013 04:35, schrieb Ali Çehreli: On 06/28/2013 07:15 PM, MattCoder wrote: > I'm really thinking about translate to portuguese That sounds great! :) Somebody else had started a translation last year to Brazilian Portuguese. I have just emailed the author to see how much they have advanced. > I was about to email you know about any legal terms etc. Thinking that it is free enough, I had chosen this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ Just let me know if it is limiting in any way. Ali Maybe some help from "proper" Portuguese as well? :) -- Paulo
Bugfix release 0.9.16
Am 22.06.2013 13:04, schrieb Sönke Ludwig: > Two additional notes: > > - There is a known bug that causes multiple DUB invocations to be >required until all indirect dependencies are installed (watch out >for a "There are still some actions to perform:" message). The >current git master fixes that. > The fix is now contained in the latest release.
Re: Announcing bottom-up-build - a build system for C/C++/D
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 07:54:30 UTC, Graham St Jack wrote: On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 00:59:15 +0200, John Colvin wrote: On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 00:10:37 UTC, Graham St Jack wrote: Having side-by-side comparisons of D against bash scripts and C++ modules had the effect of turning almost all the other team members into D advocates. Any chance we could know what team this is? (Sorry if this is common knowledge) It is the development team at my previous workplace. I haven't asked them for permission, so I would rather not say who they are. David Bryant (the previous poster) was a member of that team though, and he will be happy to provide details. I am still part of that team. We still use the early predecessor of bub to build several projects from a large C++ codebase, but I am looking forward to switching to bub at the end of the current project. For example, one project uses ~2000 cc/h files containing ~390,000 lines (before any code generation). After a successfull build, running the build again takes about 2s to figure out that everything is up to date. Knowing both build tools, I expect that time to remain about the same after the switch to bub. Yes, I have become a D advocate. Our production code is still mostly C++, but a large part of our system-level testing is now written in D (~15,000 lines). Bash scripts are becoming rarer too. :)
Re: "Programming in D" book is about 88% translated
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 02:35:27 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: That sounds great! :) Somebody else had started a translation last year to Brazilian Portuguese. I have just emailed the author to see how much they have advanced. Please let me know later how the translation is going, if I can continue his work somehow or I'll start my own translation from scratch. Thinking that it is free enough, I had chosen this: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ Just let me know if it is limiting in any way. 2 times more awesome. :] Bye, Matheus.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:37:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: The bottom line was the open source movement was not a very significant force in the 1980's when C++ gained traction. Open source really exploded around 2000, along with the internet. I wonder if open source perhaps needed the internet in order to be viable. That's a very good point. It's before my time really, but if I understand the history right, the main way to get hold of copies of stuff like GCC in the early days was to pay for a set of disks with it on -- and there was no infrastructure for easily sharing changes. So neither the free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-freedom advantages were as readily apparent or effective as they are today.
Re: D/Objective-C, extern (Objective-C)
On 2013-06-23 22:24, Jacob Carlborg wrote: As some of you might know Michel Fortin created a fork of DMD a couple of years ago which add support for using Objective-C classes and calling Objective-C method. That is making D ABI compatible with Objective-C. I have now updated it to the latest version of DMD and druntime. All D/Objective-C tests pass and all standard tests pass. I'm planning to create a DIP for this and would really like this to be folded into main line. For know you can read the design document created by Michel: I have created a proper DIP for this now. The DIP is basically Michel Fortin's original designed document properly formatted and put next to the other DIP's. DIP link: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP43 Thread for the DIP: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/kqmlm7$1kfi$1...@digitalmars.com#post-kqmlm7:241kfi:241:40digitalmars.com -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
Walter Bright, el 29 de June a las 01:37 me escribiste: > The bottom line was the open source movement was not a very > significant force in the 1980's when C++ gained traction. Open > source really exploded around 2000, along with the internet. I > wonder if open source perhaps needed the internet in order to be > viable. Yes, I think that's the whole point, without Internet open source was extremely niche, without resources to distribute it, it was almost impossible to take off, and almost impossible to collaborate, which is the big different open source have vs traditional commercial software. Even when extremely interesting, I think the ZTC++ history before open source existed or was really viable (the free software movement started in 1983, the FSF was founded in 1985 and the open source definition was made in 1998) is irrelevant in terms to analyze if right now it would be valuable to make the reference compiler partly closed. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ -- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) -- EL PRIMER MONITO DEL MILENIO... -- Crónica TV
Re: "Programming in D" book is about 88% translated
Thank you! I consider this a great work of charity. Hopefully this will make it easier to introduce new people to D.
Re: "Programming in D" book is about 88% translated
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:47:14 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Maybe some help from "proper" Portuguese as well? :) -- Paulo Ei gajo, did you mean "weird" portuguese? :P
Re: "Programming in D" book is about 88% translated
Wow, looks like the Portuguese-speaking D community is larger than I thought! How many are we here? I counted three or four in the thread! :-) LMB, speaker of Brazilian Portuguese (don't know if this is "weird" or "real" Portuguese :-P) On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Geancarlo Rocha wrote: > On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:47:14 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: >> >> >> Maybe some help from "proper" Portuguese as well? :) >> >> -- >> Paulo > > > Ei gajo, did you mean "weird" portuguese? :P
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:37:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I agree with your post, I just want to make a couple of minor corrections. On 6/27/2013 4:58 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Do you really think C++ took off because there are commercial implementations? I got into the C++ fray in the 1987-88 time frame. At the time, there was a great debate between C++ and Objective-C, and they were running neck-and-neck. I was casting about looking for a way to get a competitive edge with my C compiler, and investigated. Objective-C was put out by Stepstone. They wanted royalties from anyone who implemented a clone, and kept a tight fist over the licensing. C++ only existed in its AT&T cfront implementation. I wrote a letter to AT&T's lawyers, asking if I could create a C++ clone, and they phoned me up and were very nice. They said sure, and I wouldn't have to pay any license or royalties. So I went with C++. I don't really know if cfront was open source at the time or not, but I never looked at its source. I think cfront source came with a paid license for unix, but I'm not positive. Anyhow, I wound up implementing the first native C++ compiler for the PC. Directly afterward, C++ took off like a rocket. Was it because of Zortech C++? I think there's strong evidence it was. A lot of programmers turned up their noses at the peasants programming on DOS, but that's where the action was in the 1980's, and ZTC++ had no realistic competitors. You could also see the results in Usenet. Postings about C++ and O-C were neck-and-neck until ZTC++ came out, and then things tilted heavily in C++'s favor, and O-C disappeared into oblivion (later to be resurrected by Steve Jobs, but that's another tale). ZTC++ was so successful that Borland and Microsoft (according to rumor) abandoned their efforts at making a proprietary OOP C, and went with C++. ZTC++ was closed source, as were Borland's Turbo C++ and Microsoft C++. Do you think being a standardized language didn't help? C++ wasn't standardized until 1998, 10 years later. The 90's were pretty much the heyday of C++. Do you think the fact that there was a free implementation around that it supported virtually any existing platform didn't help? Do you think the fact was it was (almost) compatible with C (which was born freeish, since back then software was freely shared between universities) didn't help? ZTC++ was cheap as dirt, and at the time people didn't mind paying for compilers. Those days are over, though. People have different expectations today. No. A standard is something that was standardized by a standard committee which, ideally, have some credits to do so. C++ is standardized by ISO. I guess Walter and Andrei can give you more details, since I think they both were involved in the standardization of C++. I've attended a few ISO C++ meetings, but I never became a voting member, and have had pretty much zero influence over the direction C++ took after the 1980's. The bottom line was the open source movement was not a very significant force in the 1980's when C++ gained traction. Open source really exploded around 2000, along with the internet. I wonder if open source perhaps needed the internet in order to be viable. Wow. That's interesting reading. Thanks for the history lesson!
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On 6/29/2013 5:08 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:37:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: The bottom line was the open source movement was not a very significant force in the 1980's when C++ gained traction. Open source really exploded around 2000, along with the internet. I wonder if open source perhaps needed the internet in order to be viable. That's a very good point. It's before my time really, but if I understand the history right, the main way to get hold of copies of stuff like GCC in the early days was to pay for a set of disks with it on -- and there was no infrastructure for easily sharing changes. So neither the free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-freedom advantages were as readily apparent or effective as they are today. True, distribution was mainly by physical mail. There was some via BBS's and Usenet, but these were severely limited by bandwidth. I'd receive bug reports by fax, paper listings, and mailed floppies.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On 6/29/2013 9:10 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote: Even when extremely interesting, I think the ZTC++ history before open source existed or was really viable (the free software movement started in 1983, the FSF was founded in 1985 and the open source definition was made in 1998) is irrelevant in terms to analyze if right now it would be valuable to make the reference compiler partly closed. Yes, I agree. Things are fundamentally different now.
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
On 6/29/2013 7:56 PM, CJS wrote: Wow. That's interesting reading. Thanks for the history lesson! There are other versions of this history, none of which mention the role ZTC++ played in C++ attaining critical mass, so I like to repeat my version now and then :-)
Re: "Programming in D" book is about 88% translated
Am 29.06.2013 23:14, schrieb Leandro Motta Barros: Wow, looks like the Portuguese-speaking D community is larger than I thought! How many are we here? I counted three or four in the thread! :-) LMB, speaker of Brazilian Portuguese (don't know if this is "weird" or "real" Portuguese :-P) On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Geancarlo Rocha wrote: On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:47:14 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Maybe some help from "proper" Portuguese as well? :) -- Paulo Ei gajo, did you mean "weird" portuguese? :P Well, my might already be a bit out of fashion, given that I have been living outside Portugal for the last ten years. So it tends to get mixed with German every now and then. :) -- Paulo
Re: DConf 2013 Closing Keynote: Quo Vadis by Andrei Alexandrescu
I was wondering if Walter or Andrei would respond to this thread. On Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 08:37:48 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: I agree with your post, I just want to make a couple of minor corrections. What exactly do you agree with Luca about, considering all your "minor corrections" basically demolish all his points? ;) Your C++ history was really interesting, as I first used it in '97, right when it was peaking. ZTC++ was cheap as dirt, and at the time people didn't mind paying for compilers. Those days are over, though. People have different expectations today. There's no doubt that developers have been spoiled by all the free and shareware tools out there these days. What do you think of my idea of segmenting the market though? Keep providing a free-as-in-beer dmd, like you are now, for the people who want it, while Remedy and others who want performance pay for a dmd that puts out more performant code, with those improvements slowly merged back into the free dmd over time. If you are not interested in selling a paid compiler yourself, I've noted that there's nothing stopping someone else from doing this. They can take the dmd frontend under the Artistic license, compile it with the BSD-licensed llvm backend and boost-licensed druntime and phobos, and sell a paid compiler, without any permission from you or any other D contributors. You could not do anything legally to stop this, as the permissive OSS licenses allow it. However, as one of the main authors of this code, do you have any preference for or against someone taking your code to do this?
