Russian AI Cup 2016
Hi. Russian AI Cup 2016: CodeWizards is an annual online competition organized by Mail.Ru Group. This year's task is to write a bot for a simple DOTA-like game. The competition is open for international participation: starting this year, there is an English translation for everything (it may be rough at the edges though, for example, some pages may still use Russian by default, but the English version is also there). Public beta started on November 6, and the competition end is on December 25. The languages supported out-of-the-box are C++, C#, Java, Pascal, Python (2/3), and Ruby. However, the participants may translate the language-specific development package into other languages and contact the admins to enable their use on the site. Currently, the support for D, Go, and JavaScript are added this way (official announcement coming soon). My relationship with the competition is working on the D language package. I hope to take part, too. Links for the interested: Competition site: http://russianaicup.ru/ Quick start page: http://russianaicup.ru/p/quick Language package (English): https://github.com/GassaFM/raicup-2016-dlang-cgdk-en Language package (Russian): https://github.com/GassaFM/raicup-2016-dlang-cgdk-ru Ivan Kazmenko.
Re: Formal review of DIP1002
On Friday, November 18, 2016 12:10:53 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On 11/18/16 11:09 AM, pineapple wrote: > > On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote: > >> Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature > >> would need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of > >> usefulness. > >> > >> Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale: > >> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review > > > > There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the > > DIP process already made by others. > > You'd actually did us a huge favor if you did. I don't recall any > standing requests, so links to past discussions would be helpful. This > is a new process and Dicebot, myself, and Walter are very open to > suggestions on how to improve it. Yeah. This new process is a direct result of concerns and complaints about the way we've handled DIPs historically and is a huge improvement. All of the complaints that I remember seeing have to do with how DIPs have been handled historically. We can't improve things if we don't know what the problems are. Regardless, I have to say that dicebot really deserves our thanks for getting the DIP process to where it is now. The way it was going, DIPs were almost always simply DOA, because they almost never went beyond the initial newsgroup discussion. Now, we have an actual process that leads to a resolution - even if it's not necessarily the resolution that the person creating the DIP wants. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Formal review of DIP1002
On 11/18/16 12:10 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: What could we have done in the particular case of DIP2002 to make things better? s/2002/1002/
Re: Formal review of DIP1002
On 11/18/16 11:09 AM, pineapple wrote: On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote: Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature would need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of usefulness. Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the DIP process already made by others. You'd actually did us a huge favor if you did. I don't recall any standing requests, so links to past discussions would be helpful. This is a new process and Dicebot, myself, and Walter are very open to suggestions on how to improve it. I will be submitting no more DIPs or engaging in the process in any way unless and until it is significantly changed. What could we have done in the particular case of DIP2002 to make things better? Thanks, Andrei
Re: Formal review of DIP1002
On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 11:37:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote: Disposition: REJECT. A proposal for a similar or identical feature would need to be include qualitatively new motivation/evidence of usefulness. Please follow the link for the full review text / rationale: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1002.md#review There should be no need for me to repeat the arguments against the DIP process already made by others. I will be submitting no more DIPs or engaging in the process in any way unless and until it is significantly changed.
Project Highlight: The New CTFE Engine
If you've been following Stefan's CTFE Status thread here in the forums, you know some of the details of the work he has been doing in overhauling the CTFE engine. In a post targeting the world at large, he explains why he started the project, describes the deficiencies he found with the current implementation, and gives a high level overview of his new one. The blog post: https://dlang.org/blog/2016/11/18/project-highlight-the-new-ctfe-engine/ Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/5dltm4/a_look_at_the_overhaul_of_ds_ctfe_engine/
