Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 04:38:24 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 03:57:25 UTC, barry.harris wrote: Sorry little rabbit, your are misguided in this belief. Back in day we all used C and this is the reason most "safer" languages exist today. You can write pretty safe code in C these days, without too much trouble. We have the tooling and the knowledge to make that happen.. developed over decades - and both keep getting better, because the language is not subjected to a constant and frequent release cycle. Ironically, the demands on programmers to adapt to constant change, is actually making applications less safe. - and least, that's my thesis ;-) The real problem with using C these days (in some areas), is more to do with its limited abstraction power, not its lack of safety. And also C is frowned upon (and C++ too for that matter), cause most programmers are so lazy these days, and don't want to write code - but prefer to just 'link algorithms' that someone else wrote. I include myself in this - hence my interest in D ;-) Keep those algorithms coming! Those tools exist since 1979, so C programmers have had quite some time to actually use them. "To encourage people to pay more attention to the official language rules, to detect legal but suspicious constructions, and to help find interface mismatches undetectable with simple mechanisms for separate compilation, Steve Johnson adapted his pcc compiler to produce lint [Johnson 79b], which scanned a set of files and remarked on dubious constructions." Dennis Ritchie, https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html Also, anyone that wasn't using safer systems programming languages before C got widespread outside UNIX, can spend some time educating themselves on BitSavers or Archive about all the systems outside AT&T that were developed in such languages since 1961. The first well known, Burroughs B5000, has kept being improved and is sold by Unisys as ClearPath nowadays. Or PL/8 used by IBM for doing RISC research, creating an compiler using an plugable architecture similar to what many think are LLVM ideas and the respective OS. They only switched to C, when they decided to bet on UNIX for going commercial with RISC. There are only two reasons we are stuck with C, until we get to radically change computer architectures, UNIX like OSes, and embedded developers that won't use anything else even at point gun. All the quantum computing research is using languages that don't have anything to do with C.
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
Whilst we are espousing opinions… On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 08:02 +, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 04:38:24 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: > > […] > > > > You can write pretty safe code in C these days, without too > > much trouble. We have the tooling and the knowledge to make > > that happen.. developed over decades - and both keep getting > > better, because the language is not subjected to a constant and > > frequent release cycle. You can write safe code in assembly language and even machine code, but do you want to? The same applies to C. > > Ironically, the demands on programmers to adapt to constant > > change, is actually making applications less safe. - and least, > > that's my thesis ;-) > > > > The real problem with using C these days (in some areas), is > > more to do with its limited abstraction power, not its lack of > > safety. The problem with C these days is that people still use it when they really should not. C has it's place, and writing applications is not that place. > > And also C is frowned upon (and C++ too for that matter), cause > > most programmers are so lazy these days, and don't want to > > write code - but prefer to just 'link algorithms' that someone > > else wrote. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Those people using C these days either have to use it because a modern language can't yet target their platform, or they are too lazy to change their toolchain and continue with C in the face of overwhelming evidence it is the wrong thing to do. > > […] > > There are only two reasons we are stuck with C, until we get to > radically change computer architectures, UNIX like OSes, and > embedded developers that won't use anything else even at point > gun. > C is a portable assembly language, it is not really a high level language. There are those who will not change and will use C till they drop dead. That is their problem. There are those who use C because the only other option is assembly language, so they make the right decision. This is an indicator that high-level language toolchain manufacturers have failed to port to their platform. I'll wager there are still a lot of 8051s out there. I'll also wager the C++ compilers for that target do not realise C++, but a subset that is worse than using C. Even after 14 years of improvement. It is going to be interesting what happens when Rust begins to have to toolchains to deal with microcontrollers. Hopefully though ARM cores dominate now, especially given the silicon area is reputedly smaller than 8051. I've been out of the smartcard arena for over a decade now, and yet I bet it is all still very much the same. > […] > -- Russel. == Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 02:35 +, Meta via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > […] > D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was either > Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple occasions). A D2 > -> D3 transition might generate a lot of publicity if done very > carefully, but more than likely it would just put the nails in > the coffin for good and destroy all the momentum D has built up > over the past 3 years (I feel like 2015 was a big turning point > where D finally got back on peoples' radars). And Java 5 nearly killed Java, as did Java 8 and Java 9. OK so there was more internecine warfare in the D1 → D2 thing, but hopefully the D2 → D3 think will not only happen, it will happen relatively soon. Dx → Dy is the time for important breaking changes. There appear to be an increasing number of things annoying people about D2, ergo the pressure for D3 is building. NOT evolving from D2 to D3 is what will definitely kill D. -- Russel. == Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, March 02, 2018 10:37:04 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 02:35 +, Meta via Digitalmars-d-announce > > wrote: > > […] > > D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was either > > Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple occasions). A D2 > > -> D3 transition might generate a lot of publicity if done very > > carefully, but more than likely it would just put the nails in > > the coffin for good and destroy all the momentum D has built up > > over the past 3 years (I feel like 2015 was a big turning point > > where D finally got back on peoples' radars). > > And Java 5 nearly killed Java, as did Java 8 and Java 9. OK so there > was more internecine warfare in the D1 → D2 thing, but hopefully the D2 > → D3 think will not only happen, it will happen relatively soon. > > Dx → Dy is the time for important breaking changes. There appear to be > an increasing number of things annoying people about D2, ergo the > pressure for D3 is building. NOT evolving from D2 to D3 is what will > definitely kill D. Really? The possibility of D3 gets mentioned _way_ less than it used to. It gets mentioned ocassionally at this point but not all that often from what I've seen, and almost always from folks who are new to the newsgroup. Historically, D3 is what folks like to bring up when there's some particular change that they'd like to see and which clearly isn't going to happen in D2, but the idea has never gained any real traction, and as D has matured and grown, the push to create D3 seems to have diminished considerably. We get a lot less of folks trying to push for new features, because it's become clear that D isn't constantly changing everything anymore, whereas when it was younger, we'd make breaking changes all the time. That shift initially resulted in lots of talk about D3, because a number of folks really wanted changes that weren't making it into D2, but that talk has died down over time. And we _have_ still managed to make some significant changes to D without breaking everything or needing D3. Thus far, we've largely been able to make changes without needing to move to D3, and there really isn't agreement on what would be in a potential D3 anyway. There are some issues which may require D3 to fix (e.g. getting rid of auto-decoding probably would, though maybe someone smart will figure out how within D2) given that we don't want to break tons of D programs when making changes, but overall, things have been going fairly well with regards to evolving D2. Regardless, Andrei has been pretty adamant about _not_ doing D3 any time soon, and AFAIK, Walter is in agreement on that. They want D2 to actually grow and become successful, not fork the community between D2 and D3. Yes, D would probably survive it, but it would have a negative impact on D in the short term, and it's not clear that it would even buy us a lot - especially since a lot of the stuff that folks like to suggest for D3 are fairly controversial. Not everything is, but there would almost certainly need to be a pretty significant list of things that we clearly wanted to change with D and couldn't do without bumping the version to D3 for D3 to even be considered, and I really don't see that happening any time soon. For the most part, I think that proposals of real value that don't break everything stand a decent chance of being accepted as DIPs, and most improvements don't require massive breakage. Some, like making @safe the default would, and those aren't going to happen in D2, but that sort of thing certainly isn't enough to merit forking the language - not on its own anyway. And I'm quite sure that even if we were all agreed that breaking the defaults for attributes were worth it, there would be quite a lot of arguing about what the defaults should be. @safe would almost certainly win, but stuff like pure would be far more debatable, and some folks love to bring up the idea of making variables immutable by default, which doesn't play nicely at all with many D idioms, so I doubt that that sort of change would be accepted even if we definitely were doing D3 - but some folks talk like it's a given that that sort of thing should be in D3. Just discussing what would potentially go in D3 would open up a huge pandora's box of what should and shouldn't be changed, and I don't expect that it would easily result in much of the way of consensus. In any case, I expect that anyone who wants D3 is going to have a very hard time convincing Walter and Andrei that such large breaking changes would be worth it at this point. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 10:21:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: […] There are those who use C because the only other option is assembly language, so they make the right decision. This is an indicator that high-level language toolchain manufacturers have failed to port to their platform. I'll wager there are still a lot of 8051s out there. I'll also wager the C++ compilers for that target do not realise C++, but a subset that is worse than using C. Even after 14 years of improvement. It is going to be interesting what happens when Rust begins to have to toolchains to deal with microcontrollers. Hopefully though ARM cores dominate now, especially given the silicon area is reputedly smaller than 8051. I've been out of the smartcard arena for over a decade now, and yet I bet it is all still very much the same. There are safer alternatives, (Pascal and Basic), but they suffer from the same stigma that has pushed them outside of the market, namely they aren't offered on the chip vendor SDK, thus requiring an additional purchase, which only a few bother with. http://turbo51.com/ https://www.mikroe.com/compilers
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 10:21:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: ...continue with C in the face of overwhelming evidence it is the wrong thing to do. yeah, the health fanatics who promote their crap to goverments and insurance agencies, use very similar arguments about sugar, salt, alchohol, this and that when really, it's all about moderation, not prohibition (or increased taxes on things people say are bad). and science is so dodgy these days, that even scientific evidence requires evidence. c rules!
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 11:00:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: In any case, I expect that anyone who wants D3 is going to have a very hard time convincing Walter and Andrei that such large breaking changes would be worth it at this point. - Jonathan M Davis I agree. I don't think there is enough to warrant a D3 at this point. But still, imagine if every time an architect built a house, it had to be built using the same specs as the previous house. You'd end up with garbage, piled upon garbage. In essence, you'd get C++. So exploring ideas around what a new design might look like, can be useful too, so let's not discourage that by talking about 'forking' concerns.
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 11:16 +, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 10:21:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > > > > ...continue with C in the face of overwhelming evidence > > it is the wrong thing to do. > > yeah, the health fanatics who promote their crap to goverments > and insurance agencies, use very similar arguments about sugar, > salt, alchohol, this and that > > when really, it's all about moderation, not prohibition (or > increased taxes on things people say are bad). You stick with your buffer overruns, I'll do my applications in D and Rust. > and science is so dodgy these days, that even scientific evidence > requires evidence. Bollocks. Just because a certain section of USA society, and sadly some sections of UK society, either can't do science, or choose to badly report science, does make science dodgy. But that stray off topic for this list into the realms of philosophy of science. > c rules! If you want buffer overruns certainly. -- Russel. == Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 04:00 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > […] > > In any case, I expect that anyone who wants D3 is going to have a > very hard > time convincing Walter and Andrei that such large breaking changes > would be > worth it at this point. I am happy to accept now is not the time, but to say there will be no D3 is probably as bad a position as to say D3 tomorrow please, and D4 the next day. Of course the Linux numbering 3 → 4 was fatuous, no architectural or serious breaking change, just a though that the minor number was getting too big. So having D2.999 is fine per se, but advertises a lack of change and a lack of ambition since the language name is D not D2. Fortran, C++, and Java show an obsessive adherence to backward compatibility and yet they increase their major numbers to give the appearance at least of forward progress. There is a balance to be had, but I believe keeping D3 as a formal agenda item is a positive thing for the traction of D. Perhaps, of course we should be talking about D 2.x and D 3.0 and remove the D1, D2, etc. from the debate. -- Russel. == Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 11:52 +, Russel Winder wrote: > […] > report science, does make science dodgy. But that stray off topic for […] s/does/does not/ Obviously. :-) -- Russel. == Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:02:43 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 11:52 +, Russel Winder wrote: […] report science, does make science dodgy. But that stray off topic for […] s/does/does not/ Obviously. :-) mmm...freudian slip?? I study science...and what's being taught to us .. is dodgy. and anyway, since when do D forum discussion stay on topic? C ruleZ! ..and D does too ;-) ... and I don't want to hear about Rust. So lets agree to never, ever mention that word...ever again.
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 11:16:51 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote: On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 10:21:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: ...continue with C in the face of overwhelming evidence it is the wrong thing to do. yeah, the health fanatics who promote their crap to goverments and insurance agencies, use very similar arguments about sugar, salt, alchohol, this and that when really, it's all about moderation, not prohibition (or increased taxes on things people say are bad). and science is so dodgy these days, that even scientific evidence requires evidence. No, it is about costs and saving people lives. It is cheaper to prevent diseases than trying to cure them afterwards, specially chronic ones that cause people's death. Likewise, it is cheaper to prevent security exploits caused by memory corruption by not having them, instead of having to pay millions of dollars in compensation to everyone has was impacted by one. c rules! Thanks to AT&T not being able to sell UNIX, giving it by a symbolic price for universities like Berkely, followed by a few startups like Sun and SGI basing their OS on it. Had AT&T been allowed to sell UNIX at the same price of VMS, OS/z and others, and C wouldn't rule anywhere. And if you like C so much, what are you doing in a safe systems programming language forum?
Re: [OFF TOPIC] State of D 2018 Survey
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 12:16 +, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:02:43 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 11:52 +, Russel Winder wrote: > > > […] > > > report science, does make science dodgy. But that stray off > > > topic for > > > > […] > > > > s/does/does not/ > > > > Obviously. :-) > > mmm...freudian slip?? :-) > I study science...and what's being taught to us .. is dodgy. So, one of: – the teaching is bad; – the learner is not up to it; or – both. Science, in and of itself, cannot be dodgy. Yes there are debates to be had, cf. Popper, Kuhn, etc. but the foundation of science is hypotheses, experimentation, and reproducibility. It can be done badly or well by people, but it is not a dodgy thing. > and anyway, since when do D forum discussion stay on topic? Usually, but then an [OFF-TOPIC] marker gets added in the thread when a drift occurs. > C ruleZ! > > ..and D does too ;-) > > ... and I don't want to hear about Rust. > So lets agree to never, ever mention that word...ever again. Perhaps you do not, but Rust, like Go, is getting traction in the world out there. Like COBOL, C will always be there, but its use will diminish rapidly. -- Russel. == Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [OFF TOPIC] State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 13:05:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Usually, but then an [OFF-TOPIC] marker gets added in the thread when a drift occurs. Which is pretty much meaningless when using the web client, because it has a linear non-threaded history by default :)
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
That's a much nicer way of saying what I was trying to get across. :-) Early respondents to a lengthy survey about D usage are not necessarily a good representation of the more casual user's needs for the language. --bb On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Thursday, March 01, 2018 13:24:29 Bill Baxter via Digitalmars-d-announce > wrote: > > Just don't overlook the fact that people who fill out 30 minute surveys > > right away after being told about them are a self-selected group of > people > > who apparently have way too much time on their hands. > > Which also suggests they would likely also have more free time to go > chase > > down and fix breaks in their legacy code caused by new compilers. > > It's also the case that the folks who even see this survey are likely to be > a fairly small percentage of the actual user base. So, while its results > may > be useful, they need to be viewed with that fact in mind. > > That being said, I think that it's a given that we need to make breaking > changes at least occasionally. The question is more how big they can be and > how we go about it. Some changes would clearly be far too large to be worth > it, whereas others clearly pay for themselves. The harder question is the > stuff in between. > > For instance, while we might not actually have a new operator if D were > being redesigned from the ground up (Andrei has previously stated that it > really should have just been a function in the standard library or > runtime), > that would be far too large a change with far too little benefit to be even > vaguely worth it at this point. On the other hand, we _did_ change it so > that switch statements don't have implicit fallthrough anymore, and that > change was _very_ well received, because it caught bugs and it was a quick > fix to update correct code that was then an error (it was probably also > true > that relatively little correct code had to be updated, but that's harder to > measure). > > Each potential breaking change has to be weighed on its own, and the real > question is how strongly we weight the pros vs the cons. We could choose to > favor breaking code only when it's cleary _very_ benificial to do so, or we > could choose to break code any time there's even a slight benefit to it. I > think that it's pretty clear that the right choice is somewhere in between > those two extremes, but it's not an easy question as to where it is. > > And as has been discussed before, we have folks clamoring for breaking > changes and folks clamoring for nothing to ever break, and sometimes, > they're exactly the same folks. :| > > - Jonathan M Davis > >
Re: Beta 2.079.0
On 02/28/2018 11:48 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote: > Just for information. DWT doesn't build with 2.079 because of overloads > not allowed . I'm not good enough to do something about it but only > wanted to make people aware of it. I also opened an issue at the dwt > project. https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18385
Re: [OFF TOPIC] State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 13:05:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: Science, in and of itself, cannot be dodgy. science must involve humans, and humans are often dodgy. Yes there are debates to be had, cf. Popper, Kuhn, etc. but the foundation of science is hypotheses, experimentation, and reproducibility. It can be done badly or well by people, but it is not a dodgy thing. there is no science without humans - they are two sides of the one coin. If humans can be dodgy, so can science. Perhaps you do not, but Rust, like Go, is getting traction in the world out there. Like COBOL, C will always be there, but its use will diminish rapidly. Only when hardware becomes significantly faster, will C begin to fade, as then the case for C diminishes. I do like the simplicity of Go - and then there are days when I just hate that simplicity. That R?s? thing...well...it is too odd for most people to embrace, I think It is worth keeping an eye on .NET - as Microsoft are very determined to make this a cross platform runtime, and programming in C# is just .. nice. And if I recall correctly, Java and .NET still dominate the employment opportunities, and as 'safety' is becoming even more and more important, I think that is likely to stay that way for a long time to come. So I think all these new languages will just be playgrounds for ideas, or become domain specific languages, while .NET and JAVA use will continue to increase.
Release D 2.079.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Glad to announce D 2.079.0. This release comes with experimental `@nogc` exception throwing (-dip1008), a lazily initialized GC, better support for minimal runtimes, and an experimental Windows toolchain based on the lld linker and MinGW import libraries. See the changelog for more details. Thanks to everyone involved in this 👏 https://dlang.org/changelog/2.079.0.html#contributors. http://dlang.org/download.html http://dlang.org/changelog/2.079.0.html - -Martin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEpzRNrTw0HqEtE8TmsnOBFhK7GTkFAlqZ/1wACgkQsnOBFhK7 GTkF4hAAqIT7eDN5TpG3WwVQEWNtv1Z2P3/2j75TOq5UA+R93y0mzyrCvaGPhmnc 81DakDAsvf73Ed+Yr3xcVEuL6Uy9M3vCMOXT+maeOz7Ux+wQItUBvVs2CmMom9TU 7somFnXZ9+4rIlNePh2bIshleWaBmfbwxCla1FheY+geoQvsKuky9qOv3GJEK9dJ RDM3Hc70m+88aKDxZ/4HtA0mctR49nwJxDg6OKS4A2V6QxiDN0e0TWxRoH/xCCZG mnhvrYG2nhSEDVVehqJePm7p6dhsfBOv+8FtiaboRB72OB2D4Jl4PVJV61neihfj uxJWY6gIGn2JIiav0wr0SsXy1bM58GvJ71e7YLdYjez5+IQ57ydaVMATRGoPgWi2 nvgkn+/izcHUiXm6srcJvkXMLcmUn3tpFyhZv/YC681Sulfe5UfxTDVPWFQn7AM6 etm7XbF74EpelWo0UUX/2pppxNpjkKcxjnmli8pR0eKL4LOTtZ3CJOnsiw/jUoyo 7XekHL1cFBD8r6txHEwkpVdokEeNNxvZoB0dZ07mJGGgr5fwWVA++W3Xkho1hAcm +AgAAkmM7E2ZkH2vrz4jgO6N57L/LXoz8UsV8p2xqVKz2iWKi1C+UjKXFn/0wx9J FqT3zQ791PeaEbBX+AgqTw4BQMjvbsxlENkZc8uKwJvLIdJRSuQ= =4XFa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: State of D 2018 Survey
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:20:31 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: And if you like C so much, what are you doing in a safe systems programming language forum? How safe is D.. i mean really ;-) and why do people ask me that question.. I don't get it. I program (or try to) in as many languages as my brain can handle ;-) (which oddly enough, seems to be stuck at about 7)
Re: Release D 2.079.0
On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 01:50:25 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Glad to announce D 2.079.0. This release comes with experimental `@nogc` exception throwing (-dip1008), a lazily initialized GC, better support for minimal runtimes, and an experimental Windows toolchain based on the lld linker and MinGW import libraries. See the changelog for more details. Thanks to everyone involved in this 👏 https://dlang.org/changelog/2.079.0.html#contributors. http://dlang.org/download.html http://dlang.org/changelog/2.079.0.html - -Martin Well done to all! (especially the work on the toolchain) I'm going to download it and test that import syntax thingo...just to make sure it really is gone ;-)
Re: Documentation for any* dub package, any version
On 02/26/2018 03:59 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > http://dplug.dpldocs.info/v6.0.22/dplug.html > > 6.0.22 of the dplug package. Cool stuff Adam, thx. Was thinking about this for a while myself. A central doc provider could have some benefit, e.g. searching across different libraries. Compared to how difficult it is to run such a service reliably and over a long time, it is fairly easy to setup automatic docs on gh-pages for a dub package. https://forum.dlang.org/post/tkcndtapfypabsncx...@forum.dlang.org https://github.com/wilzbach/d-bootstrap#i-want-to-have-nice-documentation-for-my-project I maintain a blueprint repo that exemplifies how to integrate CI testing with coverage and docs. https://github.com/MartinNowak/bloom https://code.dlang.org/packages/bloom -Martin
Re: Release D 2.079.0
On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 01:50:25 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: Glad to announce D 2.079.0. I've got a blog post coming on this in a few hours, so I would ask anyone considering sharing this on /r/programming before then to please refrain :-)
Re: Documentation for any* dub package, any version
On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 02:12:52 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote: A central doc provider could have some benefit, e.g. searching across different libraries. Yeah, I have code for that written for select libraries already (on the main dpldocs.info site), but haven't opened it up to the full dub repo yet... I should be able to though, especially if I spring for the next tier of VPS. Check this out: https://dpldocs.info/isSomeString full-text search over a select group of packages (notably including Phobos) with a pretty fast response... just it eats ~1.5 GB to keep two copies of its database in memory in order to give those fast responses concurrently. The instance I have opened up to dub has a 1 GB limit right now... But if the patreon thing takes off, I can afford to throw more memory at it, and/or I could prolly optimize that search database too, so it will come. https://forum.dlang.org/post/tkcndtapfypabsncx...@forum.dlang.org Yeah, that's not a bad solution, though what's nice about my solution is the author doesn't actually have to do anything... the user just goes to the docs and they appear!
Re: Documentation for any* dub package, any version
Gtk-d and DWT are both too big to automatically build on the server, but I did some manual work on them. DWT: http://dwt.dpldocs.info/org.eclipse.swt.widgets.html GTK-D: http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/gtk.Application.Application.html The gtk one has me translating some syntax from C to D automatically. I figure I'll do that kind of thing for dwt too eventually, so its javadoc renders a bit better too. These two libs are bigger jobs so they won't be full featured for a while, but even these partial documentations are better than I've seen available for them before.
mysql-native v2.1.0
An all-D MySQL/MariaDB client library:
https://github.com/mysql-d/mysql-native
==
Tagged 'v2.1.0', which mainly adds a few new features, including greatly
simplified shortcut syntax for prepared statements (with automatic,
implicit caching and re-use):
---
int i = 5;
string s = "Hello world";
conn.exec("INSERT INTO table_name VALUES (?, ?)", i, s);
conn.query("SELECT * FROM table_name WHERE id=? AND name=?", i, s);
// Also works:
Prepared stmt = conn.prepare("INSERT ...blah... (?, ?)");
conn.exec(stmt, i, s);
---
As well as additional tools for optional micro-management of
registering/releasing prepared statements.
It also fixes #28: "MYXProtocol thrown when using large integers as
prepared parameters."
Full changelog
https://github.com/mysql-d/mysql-native/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#v210---2018-03-02
