Hi people. I've followed D for many years, although I haven't
used it for anything big or even have a good knowledge of Phobos.
I currently work in C++ a lot, although I am convinced that in
theory the only reason not to run away from C++ is being tied
down to a large existing codebase; and yet
I understand such a library collection would have many holes
right now, but movement also creates its own momentum. I just
think it would be good that dlang.org provided some more guidance.
I don't know, I hope to get some time on lazy Sundays to finally
read Alexandrescu's book which I bought
Exactly, and with the overlapping efforts the result is less than
the division among the parts, because none of them reach critical
mass.
But this has already been kind of done in the past regarding
Tango vs. Phobos. I think it would be good to extend the same
guidance to a gradually growing
On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 13:19:32 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 13:06:26 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
See: python, many people actively avoid using the standard
library in favor of third party libraries that accomplish the
same task.
Some third party libaries a
So many good ideas and points posted. Something should come out
after this discussion...
On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 14:07:11 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
I think maybe a modular approach is better, to have different
profiles:
1. foundational libraries (basic types)
2. architecture re
At any rate I believe this modular / one domain at a time and
layered approach would be the correct one, and setting
priorities. Then we'd have to eventually start sooner than later
filling out implementations, because the optimal previous design
time is sadly always less than infinite. :o) The
On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 at 18:20:19 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Weka uses D after their CTO Liran's evaluation of a number of
programming languages. Liran explains why he chose D and why he
still thinks D was the right choice in his a couple of DConf
talks.
I worked at Weka for a while whe
On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 13:22:12 UTC, Ali wrote:
So if I may ... the current philosophy of D enthusiasts should
be
"write code, not blogs"
Haha... :)
Good read, and totally agree there's no point in trying to
convince programmers to use a new tool other than their own
choice. C++ evangelists should read this.
On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 01:36:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 10/15/2017 5:26 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
1-based array indexing...
On Sunday, 12 February 2017 at 05:50:09 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
Somebody did some analytics on what languages get used on the
weekends and D made the list.
https://medium.com/@hoffa/the-top-weekend-languages-according-to-githubs-code-6022ea2e33e8#.2jmihhgb2
Am I reading it correctly that D is
On Friday, 3 March 2017 at 09:50:58 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On Friday, 3 March 2017 at 07:51:06 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
I get those same results when using my regular browser, but
when using another browser I get "ad lib" etc, nothing about
programming.
You may be right. :)
I mis
On Saturday, 4 March 2017 at 11:16:17 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
Most browsers have a private browsing mode, which separates
cache/cookies/etc. from your regular browsing. Doing this will
usually allow you to temporarily reset your filter bubble.
As Andrej said above, clearing cookies (or
On Saturday, 4 March 2017 at 11:30:44 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Saturday, 4 March 2017 at 11:29:05 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
worth considering that
worth considering the possibility that*
I almost always consider that anything may not be true, and I am
definitely considering it
On Saturday, 4 March 2017 at 16:03:46 UTC, Gerald wrote:
Maybe it's just me and this isn't to pick on you specifically,
but I'm getting tired of all of these threads where people tout
various ideas/actions as a way to improve D, make it more
popular, cure cancer, solve world hunger, etc with no
On Sunday, 5 March 2017 at 05:45:19 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
1. DRuntime has not stable ABI between versions
2. DRuntime has not stable ABI between compilers
Anyone can shed light on why this is so? Is there just too much
evolution at the moment that the ABI needs to be constantly
updated?
On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 09:54:36 UTC, qznc wrote:
I somewhat wonder about "Arrays (arguably the most important
data structure) are actually sane, consistent, and very much
logically intuitive in D unlike the mess that’s C (and C++)."
At some points, people get bitten by the determinism issu
On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 21:24:43 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
Then we need to define "memory safe language" a lot stricter
than it's currently being used, and both D and Rust won't
qualify as memory safe (since you can write unsafe code in
them).
D does not claim to be memory-safe always.
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 12:42:37 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 22:07:51 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
Plus statistics can prove nothing -- this logical truth cannot
be overstated.
It's called empirical evidence and it's one of the most
important techniques in science[2]
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 12:42:37 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
Doing anything else is reckless endangerment since it gives you
the feeling of being safe without actually being safe. Like
using @safe in D, or Rust, and being unaware of unsafe code
hidden from you behind "safe" facades.
Saf
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 14:02:40 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 13:14:19 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 12:42:37 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner
wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 22:07:51 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
Plus statistics can prove nothing -- this l
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 21:34:19 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
While writing a tool for dissecting various file formats, I
found a useful coding pattern that helps your D code be
cleaner, more modular, and more easily unittestable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_inversion_principle
"
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 20:00:54 UTC, aberba wrote:
(To make my problem clear, how is D's current state not going
to allow / make it so difficult for developers (who know what
they are doing) to write say Photoshop-scale software:
This is probably a common question, and it would be ea
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 21:02:23 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 17:40:29 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
[...]
You can hide unsafe code in D by annotating a function with
@trusted the same way you can hide unsafe code in Rust with
unsafe blocks.
Clearly marked is
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 21:25:41 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 20:21:24 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIageYT0Vgg
If anyone wanted a manual on "How to Build an Echo-Chamber", I
would advise you to watch this video starting at about the 7
On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 07:24:12 UTC, aberba wrote:
So technically and from experience, the current state of D is
not the primary issue?
I don't have enough experience with D yet, hopefully someone else
can tell you better. But my two cents.
"Current state" is a very general thing. Goin
In their versions without parameters, these two operators would
be called in the same way. If both are defined, opIndex() is
called, regardless of lexical definition order, according to my
test with DMD.
If both (again I'm just talking about the overloads with no
arguments) are defined within
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 01:10:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 01:07:33AM +, XavierAP via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Should not the overload of opSlice() with no arguments be
deprecated?
Am I missing something?
Using opSlice() for slicing (i.e., arr[]) is old,
backward
On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 15:42:22 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 15:34:54 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Jack Stouffer wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 15:05:45 UTC, ketmar wrote:
only for primitive types, sadly.
void main () {
Object a, b;
a == b;
}
oops. no more error messages. ye
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/233/260/687.jpg
ok I'll bite 0:)
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 14:19:17 UTC, Traktor TOni wrote:
My point is that D is much more like C++ than it is like C
Exactly. So that you understand, let's say "C" means "horse",
"C++" means "cyborg wheeled
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 15:41:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2017 14:15:45 Nick Treleaven via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 01:10:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> Using opSlice() for slicing (i.e., arr[]) is old,
> backward-compatible
> behaviour.
This
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 14:15:45 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
Also deprecating nullary opSlice() would work against defining
opSlice(int low = 0, int high = length).
The same call [] can go to a variadic opIndex(T[] indices ...)
So many possibilities :_)
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 19:02:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 07:47:43AM +, XavierAP via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 15:42:22 UTC, qznc wrote:
[...]
> Maybe we want to support weird DSLs, where operators are
> reused with very dif
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 20:36:35 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
problem here is that an operation like arr[x, y..z] doesn't
even make sense to me. I have no idea what that does.
https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/math/matrix-indexing.html#f1-85544
You can stop reading as soon as it star
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 20:31:59 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 19:53:52 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
- constexpr (a poor man's CTFE)
- Type inference
- Range-based for
- Lambdas
As far as I can tell C++11 was mostly an absorption of existing
practices, largely syn
On Monday, 6 March 2017 at 03:58:11 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I propose that we kill it in a three step process:
+1 yes please
On Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 08:03:46 UTC, Jerry wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 21:34:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 3/7/2017 9:45 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
1 warning generated.
Pretty much all C++ compilers will generate warnings for this.
The thing about warnings, though, is they imply th
On Saturday, 25 March 2017 at 09:42:07 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
As a ndslice user, I long dreaded this day:
2.074.0: "std.experimental.ndslice has been removed"
Are you aware that ndslice is available at
https://github.com/libmir/mir-algorithm right?
I believe the reason std.experimental.ndslic
On Saturday, 25 March 2017 at 14:20:53 UTC, Seb wrote:
So in short: as long as a library is in active development,
it's its death to put it into the standard library.
That could be different for std.experimental.*? Or does that work
only when development comes directly from the Foundation? S
On Saturday, 25 March 2017 at 14:20:53 UTC, Seb wrote:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/phexetutyelrssyru...@forum.dlang.org)
This has struck me from Ilya's post, as a problem that we had at
my previous job: code base of old platform too monolithic, not
modular enough; which in that case could t
On Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 18:16:49 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I create a test at work, compared an existing Ruby
implementation of an API end point to a Go implementation and a
D implementation. The D implementation was five times faster.
Unfortunately my colleagues paid more attention to
On Wednesday, 29 March 2017 at 06:54:21 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2017-03-29 08:09, XavierAP wrote:
If this could be found in a very short blog post we could
share it on
LinkedIn and stuff.
Everything is closed source so I cannot share the source code.
I think even only the performance
On Wednesday, 29 March 2017 at 11:16:28 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Is that an acceptable tradeof ?
I would consider this harmful... The spec already states this
about unit tests, so I'd guess the decision was taken in the past
conscientiously.
If you're worried about compilation time, you can a
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 at 06:58:30 UTC, Ervin Bosenbacher
wrote:
That is the same, that came as a shock to me.
I believe for this slicing D might be even faster for a larger
example/megaloop, because slicing does not necessarily copy
unless needed.
As you say the key is being able to w
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 at 09:04:28 UTC, ixid wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 at 06:53:47 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
I would consider this harmful... The spec already states this
about unit tests, so I'd guess the decision was taken in the
past conscientiously.
If you're worried about compil
On Saturday, 8 April 2017 at 12:34:56 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
Thanks for the feedback.
What I miss most is to split the General board, as everything
gets buried too quick because it's too messy with different topic
categories together:
- Development (of projects not internal to D)
-
45 matches
Mail list logo
