On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 07:33:21 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
On 2014-12-04 14:12:32 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:
I did not find that odd, they are not perceived as stable and
proven. Go is still working on finding the right GC solution.
There are quite a few companies using Go
I didn't notice a D meetup group in SF. Is anyone else in here
interested in doing something like this once a month?
-S.
Well, his choice may make sense, but I see no connection between
pet projects and proprietary paid work. They can't share code.
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 12:57:59 UTC, Ben wrote:
Let me know if you are interested in taking part in this or any
future Berlin based events.
I would be interested too.
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:22:03 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Well, his choice may make sense, but I see no connection between
pet projects and proprietary paid work. They can't share code.
hm. but they can. my proprietary paid projects sharing alot of code
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:34:18 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
'cause it's much easier to simply use tested and familiar
library than to write brand new one.
Why not? There are always things to improve.
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:41:57 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:34:18 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
'cause it's much easier to simply use tested and familiar
library than to write brand new one.
Why not? There are
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 12:57:59 UTC, Ben wrote:
Let me know if you are interested in taking part in this or any
future Berlin based events.
Thanks,
Ben.
Another Sociomantic developer checking in. Great that this is
happening. I'll be there...
On 12/05/2014 12:15 AM, Shammah Chancellor wrote:
I didn't notice a D meetup group in SF. Is anyone else in here
interested in doing something like this once a month?
-S.
I am interested but Tuesdays are not good for me.
Do you mean San Francisco proper, or more South? Andrei wanted to
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:47:51 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
yes, i know about doxygen, unittesting frameworks and so on.
somehow
they never works for me. ah, those tools are second class
citizens,
i'll do 'em favor later. of course, that later means never
most of
the time. ;-)
Another Sociomantic developer here, and I'm in!
Mozilla is also starting organizing weekly hacking sessions for
Rust in Berlin, so keep in mind that it doesn't need to be
organized as a Dconf, just people hanging, discussing and coding
is enough for me to be there!
On Friday, 5 December
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 08:56:42 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:47:51 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
yes, i know about doxygen, unittesting frameworks and so on.
somehow
they never works for me. ah, those tools are
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:56:03 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
my customers paying me for making the work done, not for
experimenting and researching.
They pay you to make the work from scratch and they don't care
how you do it.
must here ;-) and mature code. this way everyone
I would like to join. The problem is, that I'm working in Munich
(at Funkwerk). But almost every Friday I will be in Berlin. So,
it would be great if such a Meetup could be on a Friday.
Baz:
I was already thinking to add one because the foreach(i; 0 ..
8)
Better to write:
foreach(immutable i; 0 .. 8)
Bye,
bearophile
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:07:23 +
Kagamin via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:56:03 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
my customers paying me for making the work done, not for
experimenting and researching.
They pay you to make the
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 07:33:21 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
On 2014-12-04 14:12:32 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:
I did not find that odd, they are not perceived as stable and
proven. Go is still working on finding the right GC solution.
There are quite a few companies using Go
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
i didn't read the article, but i bet that this is just another
article
about his language of preference and
I will attend if it happens between 24.01 and 29.01
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 23:19:21 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote in message
news:m5qe1c$218a$1...@digitalmars.com...
04-Dec-2014 18:32, Dicebot пишет:
Please no additional 3d-party dependencies for D core tool
stack.
What are current 3rd-party deps? Dependency
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 23:22:04 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
I don't think this is solving the same problem as Marc's
proposal so I'm not sure how comparing them make sense. Marc's
proposal is about manipulating data without having ownership.
This defines ownership.
Indeed. But both
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 14:32:27 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
FWIW I don't really like this - it feels like a hack. I'd
rather just declare a private logger alias (or something like
that) and use that in the library. Decision can be made at
compile time, doesn't require reverse module
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 12:57:59 UTC, Ben wrote:
Hi All,
I am a Berlin based D developer who has been working with D for
about 2 and a half years. Like other more well known names in
these forums I work for a company called Sociomantic.
I am interested in organizing some meetups for
Dicebot wrote in message news:kgogertqxpmczhoqr...@forum.dlang.org...
That or just clean up the existing makefiles (getting rid of DMC make and
using GNU make on all platforms would be ideal). Or just doing nothing -
while existing build system is quite a mess, the problem is not critical
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 10:48:15 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
As much as I dislike digital mars make, requiring GNU make on
windows would be worse. One of these days I'm going to rewrite
the dmd test suite to not require make at all, but I'm going to
have to figure out how it works first.
Awesome to see so much interest in the meetup! Looking at when
people can make it lets set the date for the first meetup as
Friday 23rd of January. I will announce the venue and time closer
to the date. Already looking forward to it.
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 10:48:15 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Dicebot wrote in message
news:kgogertqxpmczhoqr...@forum.dlang.org...
That or just clean up the existing makefiles (getting rid of
DMC make and using GNU make on all platforms would be ideal).
Or just doing nothing - while
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 09:27:16 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything.html
i didn't read the article, but i bet that
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:53:10 +
Chris via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Now is the right time to confess. I hardly ever use unit tests
although it's included (and encouraged) in D. Why? When I write
new code I unit test as I go along, with
debug writefln(result %s,
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you
break existing code.
That's the great thing about unittests, and the reason why I
write unittests. I work on a fairly complex code base and every
now and then there's a new feature requested. Implementing
features involves
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 11:35:29 UTC, Ben wrote:
Awesome to see so much interest in the meetup! Looking at when
people can make it lets set the date for the first meetup as
Friday 23rd of January. I will announce the venue and time
closer to the date. Already looking forward to it.
I'm
On 02/12/2014 22:00, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Recently, in a bid to reduce the messy tangle that is the web of
interdependencies among Phobos modules, many module-scope imports have
been replaced with scoped imports. In addition to reducing gratuitous
dependencies (the scoped import
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 10:30:08 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 14:32:27 UTC, Daniel Murphy
wrote:
FWIW I don't really like this - it feels like a hack. I'd
rather just declare a private logger alias (or something like
that) and use that in the library. Decision
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric wrote:
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you
break existing code.
That's the great thing about unittests, and the reason why I
write unittests. I work on a fairly complex code base and every
now and then
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 02:39:07AM +, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
From the article:
Most importantly, the kinds of bugs that people introduce most often
aren’t the kind of bugs that unit tests catch. With few
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
[...]
Also relevant:
http://wiki.jetbrains.net/intellij/Developing_and_running_a_Java_EE_Hello_World_application
i
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 11:53 +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
indeed they don't catch bugs, because you only put into unit
tests what you know (or expect) at a given moment (just like the
old writefln()). The bugs I, or other people, discover later
would usually not be caught by
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:03:59PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12/4/2014 6:47 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
and what i also can't grok is test-driven developement. ah, we
spent alot of time writing that tests that we can't even run 'cause
we didn't start working on
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:42:16 UTC, Chris wrote:
I read some comments in D code on github saying extend unit
test to include XYZ. So it's already been tested, it works and
it will never be added, just like the
We require adding test cases to match Phobos changes not because
it is
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 09:27:15AM +, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
From the article:
Most importantly, the kinds of bugs that people introduce most often
aren’t the kind of bugs that unit tests catch. With few
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:53:10AM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you break
existing code.
That's one of the *major* benefits of unittest IMO: prevent regressions.
But you'll realize that soon enough anyway.
void foo(int[2]) {}
void bar(int[]) {}
void main() @nogc {
foo([1, 2]s);
bar([1, 2]s);
}
That is a rather unfriendly syntax, it is the kind that
degenerates into noise with other structures.
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:38:48 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.2709.1417745546.9932.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
I've often pondered about the possibility of a language where
the
compiler will analyze each module and infer any
ixid:
void foo(int[2]) {}
void bar(int[]) {}
void main() @nogc {
foo([1, 2]s);
bar([1, 2]s);
}
That is a rather unfriendly syntax, it is the kind that
degenerates into noise with other structures.
Can you show an example of the noisy code it causes?
And are you able to invent
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 11:53:11 UTC, Chris wrote:
and stuff like this. Stupid? Unprofessional? I don't know. It
works. I once started to write unit tests only to find out that
indeed they don't catch bugs, because you only put into unit
tests what you know (or expect) at a given moment
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:43:51 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 09:27:15AM +, Paulo Pinto via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
[...]
you have to hire humans to
sit all day repeating the same
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:14:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
wrote:
[...]
Also relevant:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 14:10:44 UTC, bearophile wrote:
ixid:
void foo(int[2]) {}
void bar(int[]) {}
void main() @nogc {
foo([1, 2]s);
bar([1, 2]s);
}
That is a rather unfriendly syntax, it is the kind that
degenerates into noise with other structures.
Can you show an example of
On 12/5/14, 8:53 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 09:27:16 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 5:32 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Now is the right time to confess. I hardly ever use unit tests although
On 12/5/14, 9:42 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric wrote:
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you break
existing code.
That's the great thing about unittests, and the reason why I write
unittests. I work on a fairly complex code
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:03:39 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 12/5/14, 9:42 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric
wrote:
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when
you break
existing code.
That's the great thing about unittests,
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:06:14 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 02:39:07AM +, deadalnix via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 02:25:20 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
[...]
From the article:
Most importantly, the kinds of bugs that
On 12/4/14 5:48 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 14:58:47 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
There can be at most one owner for any piece of data.
This doesn't seem right. For GC data, the GC owns the data, that is
true. But for Ref-counted data, there is more than one owner,
On 12/5/14, 12:11 PM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:03:39 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 12/5/14, 9:42 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric wrote:
The good thing about unit tests is that they tell you when you break
existing code.
That's
On 12/4/14 4:24 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP69
Despite its length, this is a fairly simple proposal. It adds the
missing semantics for the 'scope' storage class in order to make it
possible to pass a reference to a function without it being possible for
it to escape.
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:25:19 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 12/5/14, 12:11 PM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:03:39 UTC, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
On 12/5/14, 9:42 AM, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 12:06:55 UTC, Nemanja Boric
wrote:
The good thing about unit
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 14:53:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
As I said, I'm not against unit tests and I use them where they
make sense (difficult output, not breaking existing tested
code). But I often don't bother with them when they tell me
what I already know.
assert(addNumbers(1,1) == 2);
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:56:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:53:10AM +, Chris via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
At my day job, you'd be shocked to know how many times things
flat-out
break in the nastiest, most obvious ways, yet people DO NOT EVEN
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:44:35 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 14:53:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
As I said, I'm not against unit tests and I use them where
they make sense (difficult output, not breaking existing
tested code). But I often don't bother with them when they
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:49:13 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:56:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:53:10AM +, Chris via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
At my day job, you'd be shocked to know how many times things
flat-out
break in
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 22:11:36 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
If it were only 0.1% at maximum for any code, it wouldn't be a
problem.
But enabling stack traces would make a std.simd module which
would only consists of tiny leaf functions basically unusable.
Traditionally it doesn't
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:15:03 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
I didn't notice a D meetup group in SF. Is anyone else in here
interested in doing something like this once a month?
-S.
I am interested, preferable Sunday evening or so, because I am
fairly limited on the weekend due to
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 22:08:20 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables
Whoa! Are they big?
There are limitations this proposal has in comparison to my
original one. These limitations might of course be harmless and
play no role in practice, but on the other hand, they may, so I
think it's good to list them here.
Additionally I have to agree with Steven Schveighoffer: This DIP
is
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:25:19 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
This is very true. Specially when mocks come into play,
sometimes test become duplicated code and every time you make
changes in your codebase you have to go and change the expected
behaviour of mocks, which is just tedious and
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:55:22PM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:44:35 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 14:53:43 UTC, Chris wrote:
As I said, I'm not against unit tests and I use them where they make
sense (difficult output, not
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 16:44:51 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
Why when an DMD developer said « no » to you in ticket you go
to the forum and troll there ?
If one wants debug information he will use debug version of
phobos. In fine-tune application there's no need for -gs flag.
With stack info
Dicebot wrote in message news:jrymzqkdctmfsgrqz...@forum.dlang.org...
How is it really different? Both require external tool, both are
available via prebuilt windows binary. At least you can build GNU
one yourself.
Because I already have to install dmc and dm make comes with that.
uri wrote in message news:glxybpnqadqnfnixk...@forum.dlang.org...
I think I'd much rather GNU make.
No offence, but there's no chance your little tool will ever get the same
test coverage or real-world use testing of GNU make on Windows.
This is why I prefer CMake like tools over dub. Plus
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 17:47:10 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
Dicebot wrote in message
news:jrymzqkdctmfsgrqz...@forum.dlang.org...
How is it really different? Both require external tool, both
are available via prebuilt windows binary. At least you can
build GNU one yourself.
Because I
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:11:29PM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
be used. All I'm saying is that sometimes unit tests are sold as the
be all end all anti-bug design.
I'm not sure where you heard that from, but even the name itself should
already have given it away -- it's *unit*
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 03:57:14PM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:49:13 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 13:56:27 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:53:10AM +, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
At my
I'm also down for a SF meetup. TBH, I haven't written much D
lately (game developer), but I'd love to participate.
JEE is the evolution of distributed CORBA applications in the
enterprise, with .NET enterprise applications being the
evolution of DCOM.
Both games that C++ lost its place at.
What about zeromq with C++ or even resorting to simple internal
REST protocols. I've yet to see a valid argument
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM, via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
For speed... I dunno. In the cloud you can run Python on 10 instances with
little effort,
But if a single instance suffices, why would you? Probably not a popular
opinion, but we should think more about
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 05:12 -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
[...]
Also relevant:
http://www.meetup.com/D-Lang-Sillicon-Valley
in Sunnyvale.
First meeting in Jan., and then every 6 weeks
Room holds 2 - 500, sponsored by Apakau
Looking for co-organizers to meet w/ ahead of first meeting.
I can go over a step by step of setting up Eclipse, DUB, vibe-D
at fist meeting and
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 07:52:24PM +, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 05:12 -0800, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:49:02AM +0200, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:39:49 +
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d
On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are testing what they
should. But if they reach the magical percentage number then everyone is happy.
I write unit tests with the goal of exercising every line of code. While one can
argue that that
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 11:41:28AM -0800, Ziad Hatahet via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:12 AM, via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
For speed... I dunno. In the cloud you can run Python on 10
instances with little effort,
But if a single instance
On 12/5/2014 8:36 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
As with all things, I'm skeptical of blindly applying some methodology
even when it's not applicable or of questionable benefit.
In general I agree with you, but for unittests a methodology of using it with a
coverage analyzer to
On 12/5/2014 5:41 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
As for GUI code, I've always been of the opinion that it should be coded
in such a way as to be fully scriptable. GUI's that can only operate
when given real user input has failed from the start IMO, because not
being scriptable also
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are
testing what they
should. But if they reach the magical percentage number then
everyone is happy.
I write unit tests with the goal
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:35:50PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12/5/2014 8:36 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
As with all things, I'm skeptical of blindly applying some
methodology even when it's not applicable or of questionable benefit.
In general I agree with
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 18:46:12 UTC, Jonathan wrote:
JEE is the evolution of distributed CORBA applications in the
enterprise, with .NET enterprise applications being the
evolution of DCOM.
Both games that C++ lost its place at.
What about zeromq with C++ or even resorting to simple
On 12/5/2014 7:27 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Can someone who knows what this new feature is supposed to do give some Ali
Çehreli-like description on the feature? Basically, let's strip out the *proof*
in the DIP (the how it works and why we have it), and focus on how it is to be
used.
I
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:44:17PM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12/5/2014 5:41 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
As for GUI code, I've always been of the opinion that it should be
coded in such a way as to be fully scriptable. GUI's that can only
operate when given
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 08:43:02PM +, paulo pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:25:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/5/2014 1:27 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Just because code has tests, doesn't mean the tests are testing what
they should. But if they reach the
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 20:32:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I agree. It's not just about conservation of resources and
power,
though. It's also about maximizing the utility of our assets and
extending our reach.
If I were a business and I invested $10,000 in servers,
On 12/4/2014 6:56 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 00:32:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 3:04 PM, deadalnix wrote:
So as mentioned, there are various problem with this DIP :
- rvalue are defined as having a scope that goes to the end of the statement.
That mean
Thought this might be interesting:
http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/2od8a8/ds_proposal_for_escapeproof_references_with_some/
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2ocmvb/stdstring_is_responsible_for_almost_half_of_all/
Looks like someone need immutable(char)[] .
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:03:38PM +, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2ocmvb/stdstring_is_responsible_for_almost_half_of_all/
Looks like someone need immutable(char)[] .
Yeah!!! String processing totally sucks in C/C++, even with clever
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 21:21:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
The only situation where you truly need dedicated servers is
where you have real time requirements, a constant high load or
where you need a lot of RAM because you cannot partition the
dataset.
Btw, in most cases the last
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 13:48:04 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's an argument for Java over Python specifically but a bit
more
general in reality. This stood out for me:
!…other languages like D and Go are too new to bet my work on.
05-Dec-2014 03:02, Trent Forkert пишет:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 at 19:52:12 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
04-Dec-2014 18:32, Dicebot пишет:
Please no additional 3d-party dependencies for D core tool stack.
What are current 3rd-party deps? Dependency on DMC make and compiler
is already
05-Dec-2014 04:47, Daniel Murphy пишет:
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.2688.1417735514.9932.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
What would you suggest we do?
Write a build script in D?
+1.
I mean, a D compiler is an additional dependency, but it's one we're
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 01:34:20AM +0300, Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
05-Dec-2014 04:47, Daniel Murphy пишет:
H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote in message
news:mailman.2688.1417735514.9932.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
What would you suggest we do?
Write a build
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 08:08:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 07:33:21 UTC, Shammah Chancellor
wrote:
On 2014-12-04 14:12:32 +, Ola Fosheim Grøstad said:
I did not find that odd, they are not perceived as stable and
proven. Go is still working on
On 12/4/2014 1:32 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 12/4/14 3:58 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/4/2014 7:25 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
int* bar(scope int*);
scope int* foo();
bar(foo()); // Ok, lifetime(foo()) lifetime(bar())
I'm trying to understand how foo can be
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
