On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:25:10 -0500, Fab wrote:
Dear D community,
My name is Fabian and I used to code C++ and Delphi. But a few month ago
I've
got a book about D as a present. All in all D sounds very interesting
... but
- the "big" but - is D still alive?
Very much so. D2 is being acti
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:39:08 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:25:10 -0500, Fab wrote:
Dear D community,
My name is Fabian and I used to code C++ and Delphi. But a few month
ago I've
got a book about D as a present. All in all D sounds very interesting
... but
Thank you for your answer.
But is there also a productive IDE for 'the daily use'?
I'm used to code Delphi and there is also everything in the IDE I need to code
full featured applications.
I don't need a GUI-Designer (but it would be nice - maybe something like the
QT-Designer) but a IDE which su
In addition you have to know for what I want to use D.
I want to code little games (2D: Jump'n'Run) and I want to use D for scholastic
use - drawing plots, calculating functions, ... and so on.
You see: I want to use D for private and for scholastic purposes.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:54:06 -0500, Fab wrote:
Thank you for your answer.
But is there also a productive IDE for 'the daily use'?
I'm used to code Delphi and there is also everything in the IDE I need
to code
full featured applications.
I don't need a GUI-Designer (but it would be nice - ma
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.vpxkvij9eav7ka@steve-laptop...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:25:10 -0500, Fab wrote:
>
>> Are there any continued database projects?
>
> AFAIK, there is very little DB support (which will definitely need to be
> addressed before D is considered a compl
"Fab" wrote in message
news:ihpu4u$24bp$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Thank you for your answer.
>
> But is there also a productive IDE for 'the daily use'?
> I'm used to code Delphi and there is also everything in the IDE I need to
> code
> full featured applications.
> I don't need a GUI-Designer
"Fab" wrote in message
news:ihpv7r$272q$1...@digitalmars.com...
> In addition you have to know for what I want to use D.
> I want to code little games (2D: Jump'n'Run) and I want to use D for
> scholastic
> use - drawing plots, calculating functions, ... and so on.
>
> You see: I want to use D f
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:11:06 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.vpxkvij9eav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:25:10 -0500, Fab wrote:
Are there any continued database projects?
AFAIK, there is very little DB support (which will definitel
and I want to use D for scholastic use -
drawing plots, calculating functions, ... and so on.
Well nothing can beat Matlab for quick plots n stuff.
(Speaking of which, of course you can write plugins for it with D:
https://bitbucket.org/trass3r/matd)
You see: I want to use D for private an
But is there also a productive IDE for 'the daily use'?
I still use Descent for Eclipse. It isn't maintained anymore but it's the
only one with a copy of the dmd frontend with some semantic analysis.
VisualD on Windows provides some basic auto-completion and goto definition
etc via compiler
But a few month ago I've got a book about D as a present
Nice, the word is spreading.
So - is there any reason to change to D? I would ... I really would
change
if there were more points than a nice language.
I don't buy a good car if it's too expensive
But once you had a test drive, you
Trass3r wrote:
But once you had a test drive, you just can't get out anymore.
I've had more than one longtime C++ expert tell me that after using D for a
while, then for work reasons get forced back into C++, just find themselves
cringing every time they edit it.
On 1/26/11 4:09 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Trass3r wrote:
But once you had a test drive, you just can't get out anymore.
I've had more than one longtime C++ expert tell me that after using D
for a while, then for work reasons get forced back into C++, just find
themselves cringing every time the
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 14:09:25 Walter Bright wrote:
> Trass3r wrote:
> > But once you had a test drive, you just can't get out anymore.
>
> I've had more than one longtime C++ expert tell me that after using D for a
> while, then for work reasons get forced back into C++, just find themse
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:ihq66j$2llc$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Trass3r wrote:
>> But once you had a test drive, you just can't get out anymore.
>
> I've had more than one longtime C++ expert tell me that after using D for
> a while, then for work reasons get forced back into C++, ju
Trass3r wrote:
But once you had a test drive, you just can't get out anymore.
I've had more than one longtime C++ expert tell me that after using D
for a while, then for work reasons get forced back into C++, just find
themselves cringing every time they edit it.
Yep, like being thrown ba
On 1/26/11 4:09 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Trass3r wrote:
But once you had a test drive, you just can't get out anymore.
I've had more than one longtime C++ expert tell me that after using D
for a while, then for work reasons get forced back into C++, just find
themselves cringing every time the
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.973.1296080233.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 14:09:25 Walter Bright wrote:
>> Trass3r wrote:
>> > But once you had a test drive, you just can't get out anymore.
>>
>> I've had more than one longtime C++ expert
For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
appending/concatenation) and *no header files*. (No more header files!!
Yay!!!). But auto is fantastic too though, I get sooo much use out of
that.
Getting rid of the pointer crap (proper arrays, bounds checking, classes
as refere
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:ihq7a3$2o05$1...@digitalmars.com...
> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
> news:mailman.973.1296080233.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 14:09:25 Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Trass3r wrote:
>>> > But once you had a test dr
Steven Schveighoffer napisał:
> > Adam Ruppe and Piotr Szturmaj have recently been working on some database
> > stuff. See the recent thread "Can your programming language do this?"
>
> I have ignored that thread (I sometimes just ignore threads because they
> start out uninteresting, or become
Yeah, ditto for QuantLibD. I just spent too much time on a test project
trying to isolate dmd and phobos bugs to submit something meaningful to
bugzilla and too little time coding. Not to mention that sometimes it
was really hard to know what the language *should* do because of
outdated doc
On 01/26/2011 11:33 PM, Trass3r wrote:
For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
appending/concatenation) and *no header files*. (No more header files!!
Yay!!!). But auto is fantastic too though, I get sooo much use out of that.
Getting rid of the pointer crap (proper arrays
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 16:41:10 spir wrote:
> On 01/26/2011 11:33 PM, Trass3r wrote:
> >> For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
> >> appending/concatenation) and *no header files*. (No more header files!!
> >> Yay!!!). But auto is fantastic too though, I get sooo muc
On 01/27/2011 02:11 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 16:41:10 spir wrote:
On 01/26/2011 11:33 PM, Trass3r wrote:
For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
appending/concatenation) and *no header files*. (No more header files!!
Yay!!!). But auto is f
On Wednesday 26 January 2011 17:52:19 spir wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 02:11 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 16:41:10 spir wrote:
> >> On 01/26/2011 11:33 PM, Trass3r wrote:
> For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
> appending/concatenation
On Wednesday 26 January 2011 19:06:37 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 January 2011 17:52:19 spir wrote:
> > On 01/27/2011 02:11 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 16:41:10 spir wrote:
> > >> On 01/26/2011 11:33 PM, Trass3r wrote:
> > For me, D's killer f
Am 27.01.2011 02:11, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 16:41:10 spir wrote:
>> On 01/26/2011 11:33 PM, Trass3r wrote:
For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
appending/concatenation) and *no header files*. (No more header files!!
Yay!!!)
Am 27.01.2011 08:10, schrieb Daniel Gibson:
> Am 27.01.2011 02:11, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 16:41:10 spir wrote:
>>> On 01/26/2011 11:33 PM, Trass3r wrote:
> For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
> appending/concatenation) and *no h
spir:
> Sorry, but you are wrong on this. I understand this sounds unsafe, but no.
> Most
> languages, I guess, just do that without any worry. In particular, I have
> frequented python and Lua mailing lists for years without even reading once
> about this beeing a misfeature (and indeed have
Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:39:08 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I will warn you, once you start using D, you will not want to use
> something else. I cringe every day when I have to use PHP for work.
Nice trolling.
Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:35:19 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I'd suggest to anyone looking to use D for something really big to try
> and "prove" out how well D will perform for you by coding up bits of
> your whole project that you think will be needed. Hopefully, you can do
> everything witho
Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:09:25 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> Trass3r wrote:
>> But once you had a test drive, you just can't get out anymore.
>
> I've had more than one longtime C++ expert tell me that after using D
> for a while, then for work reasons get forced back into C++, just find
> themselves
Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:33:54 +0100, Trass3r wrote:
>> For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
>> appending/concatenation) and *no header files*. (No more header files!!
>> Yay!!!). But auto is fantastic too though, I get sooo much use out of
>> that.
>
> Getting rid of the poin
retard Wrote:
> Or maybe the community members in general aren't very good developers; they
> can't see the potential of this language. The fact is, no matter what
> language you choose, if it isn't a complete joke, you can finish the
> project
We have a lot of talented people in this community
Am 27.01.2011 01:41, schrieb spir:
On 01/26/2011 11:33 PM, Trass3r wrote:
For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
appending/concatenation) and *no header files*. (No more header files!!
Yay!!!). But auto is fantastic too though, I get sooo much use out of
that.
Getting ri
On 01/27/2011 04:06 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Clearly, if you think that not being strict about indices is a good idea, you're
either dealing with very different circumstances than I have and/or you're
coding
very differently. Regardless, since it's trivial to create a wrapper that does
what y
On 01/27/2011 01:24 PM, Mafi wrote:
Am 27.01.2011 01:41, schrieb spir:
On 01/26/2011 11:33 PM, Trass3r wrote:
For me, D's killer features were string handling (slicing and
appending/concatenation) and *no header files*. (No more header files!!
Yay!!!). But auto is fantastic too though, I get so
>> You mean that if you give an index which is too large, it just uses $
>> instead?
>> That sounds seriously bug-prone to me. I'd much rather that it blew up and
>> thus
>> told me that my program had a bug in it rather than silently trying to
>> work.
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong on this. I under
Ulrik Mikaelsson:
> Isn't the real reason for this that bounds-checking is usually
> completely turned-off in release-builds?
Bounds checking is turned off in release builds mostly because:
1) DMD is not able to infer & remove most bound checks at compile-time as the
latest Oracle VM are able to
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 01:34:04 bearophile wrote:
> spir:
> > Sorry, but you are wrong on this. I understand this sounds unsafe, but
> > no. Most languages, I guess, just do that without any worry. In
> > particular, I have frequented python and Lua mailing lists for years
> > without even r
Honestly, I think this would just encourage writing sloppy code.
Using min(x, $) explicitly informs the reader of the code of exactly
what happens. It's harder to tell when it's implicit. Not only that,
but it can introduce bugs in your code - because while you might use
any upper bound, you're st
On Thursday, January 27, 2011 09:47:44 bearophile wrote:
> Ulrik Mikaelsson:
> > Isn't the real reason for this that bounds-checking is usually
> > completely turned-off in release-builds?
>
> Bounds checking is turned off in release builds mostly because:
> 1) DMD is not able to infer & remove mo
Andrej Mitrovic:
> Honestly, I think this would just encourage writing sloppy code.
I don't believe this, on the other hand I believe the current behaviour is
bug-prone.
> Using min(x, $) explicitly informs the reader of the code of exactly
> what happens.
Right. The problem is that in some c
This *code* was accepted, not *could*.
Jonathan M Davis:
> I don't think that you stand much chance of convincing a crowd using a system
> programming language that having the compiler adjust your out of bound
> indices
> to be in bounds is good idea.
Technically here we are talking about slicing bounds, and not indexes. But you
On 1/27/11, bearophile wrote:
> Programmers just quickly learn that indexes and slices have a bit different
> semantics.
Right, programmers can easily adapt to slightly different semantics in
related areas of the language, I mean C++ is known for being very easy
to learn for exactly that reason.
Am 27.01.2011 19:25, schrieb bearophile:
>
> Programmers just quickly learn that indexes and slices have a bit different
> semantics.
>
And I guess this holds true for programmers used to python as well?
So they should have no problem with learning to use foo = blah[i..min($,i+n)]
instead of fo
retard wrote:
I also got brainwashed by the C++ advocates years ago. However, I didn't
need D to see how terrible writing C++ is. C++ sure is a powerful
language and sometimes a necessary evil, but you don't really need very
strong doses of more recent languages to see how much nicer everything
retard wrote:
The main reasons were RAII and Design by
Contract. Even funnier, it took D about 9 years to fix the main bug in DbC
(contract inheritance).
The reason that took so long was that few people were using DbC effectively, so
it was a low priority. I originally had high hopes that DbC
On 1/27/11 1:26 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
retard wrote:
I also got brainwashed by the C++ advocates years ago. However, I
didn't need D to see how terrible writing C++ is. C++ sure is a
powerful language and sometimes a necessary evil, but you don't really
need very strong doses of more recent la
Walter:
>The reason that took so long was that few people were using DbC effectively,
>so it was a low priority. I originally had high hopes that DbC would produce
>dramatic improvements in code quality, but the real world results were
>disappointing.<
After many years and many failed hopes, I
bearophile wrote:
Walter:
The reason that took so long was that few people were using DbC
effectively, so it was a low priority. I originally had high hopes that DbC
would produce dramatic improvements in code quality, but the real world
results were disappointing.<
After many years and many
Walter Bright napisał:
> bearophile wrote:
> > Walter:
> >
> >> The reason that took so long was that few people were using DbC
> >> effectively, so it was a low priority. I originally had high hopes that DbC
> >> would produce dramatic improvements in code quality, but the real world
> >> result
Tomek Sowiński wrote:
Walter Bright napisał:
bearophile wrote:
Walter:
The reason that took so long was that few people were using DbC
effectively, so it was a low priority. I originally had high hopes that
DbC would produce dramatic improvements in code quality, but the real
world results
On 1/28/11, Walter Bright wrote:
> I think one of the reasons DbC has not paid off is it still requires a
> significant investment of effort by the programmer. It's too easy to not
> bother.
Another way to look at it is that programmers are enjoying the safety
of using regular D so much as to not
On 1/27/11 8:02 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Tomek Sowiński wrote:
Walter Bright napisał:
bearophile wrote:
Walter:
The reason that took so long was that few people were using DbC
effectively, so it was a low priority. I originally had high hopes
that
DbC would produce dramatic improvements in
On 01/27/2011 05:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Unit testing has produced a dramatic improvement in coding.
agreed. unit testing (maybe with dbc, I don't remember) was the only
reason I noticed issue 5364.
Andrej Mitrovic:
> Another way to look at it is that programmers are enjoying the safety
> of using regular D so much as to not even think about using DbC.
This may be a case of Risk homeostasis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis
But maybe it's mostly a matter of getting used to D. On
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/27/11 8:02 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
I was talking about this with Andrei the other day. D's focus on making
it easy to do things the right way has paid off handsomely, though this
is not at all obvious from reading a feature list. It only becomes clear
when you us
On Thursday 27 January 2011 19:29:59 Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > One issue with DbC is that its only significant advantage is its
> > interplay with inheritance. Otherwise, scope() in conjunction with
> > assert works with less syntactic overhead. So DbC tends to shine wit
Andrei:
> One issue with DbC is that its only significant advantage is its
> interplay with inheritance. Otherwise, scope() in conjunction with
> assert works with less syntactic overhead. So DbC tends to shine with
> large and deep hierarchies... but large and deep hierarchies are not
> that
"the problems C++ has are not necessary in order to get
the powerful things C++ can do."
That thought makes me happy!
Jonathan M Davis:
> I generally end up using unit tests to verify that stuff works correctly and
> then
> throw exceptions on bad input. So while I like having DbC built in, I don't
> end
> up using it all that much. It's prim,arily invariant that I end up using
> though,
> and that's harder
On 01/28/2011 12:36 PM, bearophile wrote:
I think the problem here is that you are not using your D tools well enough yet:
- Preconditions allow you to save some tests in your unittests, because you
have less need to test many input boundary conditions.
- Postconditions are useful to save some
Am 28.01.2011 13:30, schrieb spir:
> On 01/28/2011 12:36 PM, bearophile wrote:
>
>> I think the problem here is that you are not using your D tools well enough
>> yet:
>> - Preconditions allow you to save some tests in your unittests, because you
>> have less need to test many input boundary cond
spir:
> What is this "old" feature?
It's a basic DbC feature that's currently missing in D because of some
implementation troubles (and maybe also because Walter is a bit disappointed
about DbC).
Example: a class member function performs a certain computation and changes
some attributes. In t
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 04:50:32 -0500, retard wrote:
Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:39:08 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I will warn you, once you start using D, you will not want to use
something else. I cringe every day when I have to use PHP for work.
Nice trolling.
*shrug* call it whatever you
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 04:59:18 -0500, retard wrote:
Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:35:19 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I'd suggest to anyone looking to use D for something really big to try
and "prove" out how well D will perform for you by coding up bits of
your whole project that you think will be
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:37:31 -0500, Ellery Newcomer
wrote:
On 01/27/2011 05:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Unit testing has produced a dramatic improvement in coding.
agreed. unit testing (maybe with dbc, I don't remember) was the only
reason I noticed issue 5364.
I created 4 or 5 bugs a
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
> On 1/27/11 8:02 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > I think one of the reasons DbC has not paid off is it still requires a
> > significant investment of effort by the programmer. It's too easy to not
> > bother.
> One issue with
On 1/28/11 10:14 AM, Roman Ivanov wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s article
On 1/27/11 8:02 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
I think one of the reasons DbC has not paid off is it still requires a
significant investment of effort by the programmer. It's too easy
Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:14:04 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 04:59:18 -0500, retard wrote:
>
>> Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:35:19 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest to anyone looking to use D for something really big to try
>>> and "prove" out how well D will per
Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:14:27 +, Roman Ivanov wrote:
> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
> article
>> On 1/27/11 8:02 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> > I think one of the reasons DbC has not paid off is it still requires
>> > a significant investment of effort by the
On 1/28/11 3:25 PM, retard wrote:
Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:14:04 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think as D matures
and hopefully gets more enterprise support, these problems will be
history.
This is the classic chicken or the egg problem. I'm not trying to be
unnecessarily mean. Enterprise su
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can't buy "enterprise" support,
Of course you can!
On Friday, January 28, 2011 17:16:54 Walter Bright wrote:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > I can't buy "enterprise" support,
>
> Of course you can!
Well, since Scotty hasn't been born yet, it's probably a bit premature... ;)
- Jonathan M Davis
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, January 28, 2011 17:16:54 Walter Bright wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can't buy "enterprise" support,
Of course you can!
Well, since Scotty hasn't been born yet, it's probably a bit premature... ;)
She canna take the power!
On 27/01/11 6:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
The safety net we are talking about is present only at the right bound of a
slicing syntax (it's not performed in normal array indexing), and it
consists in a single min(x, $) operation, that's one branch. So it slows
down code, but only a bit. And in
Peter Alexander:
> I agree. I've never needed to add a bounds check like that.
While my string processing D code contains many of them :-) I presume I am
thinking in Python there.
Bye,
bearophile
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:16:54 -0500, Walter Bright
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can't buy "enterprise" support,
Of course you can!
No really, I can't afford it ;)
But seriously, I find it hard to believe that you can buy enterprise
support for D if it means that you do the work
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:25:49 -0500, retard wrote:
Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:14:04 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think as D matures
and hopefully gets more enterprise support, these problems will be
history.
This is the classic chicken or the egg problem. I'm not trying to be
unnecessarily m
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:16:54 -0500, Walter Bright
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can't buy "enterprise" support,
Of course you can!
No really, I can't afford it ;)
But seriously, I find it hard to believe that you can buy enterprise
support for D i
2011/1/28 retard :
> I've heard this before. I've also heard the 64-bit port and many other
> things are done in a year/month or two. The fact is, you're overly
> optimistic and these are all bullshit. When I come back here in a year or
> two, I have full justification to laugh at your stupid claim
I've chosen to only work with D1/Tango from start, and I simply don't
recognize the frustration many are feeling. I'm only concerned over
that there ARE quite a few developers that seems to have been turned
off by instability, and the Phobos/Tango-problem.
Well, if nobody acted as a guinea pig,
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:26:56 -0500, Simen kjaeraas
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:16:54 -0500, Walter Bright
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can't buy "enterprise" support,
Of course you can!
No really, I can't afford it ;)
But seriously, I find i
Trass3r Wrote:
> > I've chosen to only work with D1/Tango from start, and I simply don't
> > recognize the frustration many are feeling. I'm only concerned over
> > that there ARE quite a few developers that seems to have been turned
> > off by instability, and the Phobos/Tango-problem.
>
> Well,
2011/1/31 Jesse Phillips :
> I do not think there is an issue with using D2 in a new project, but if you
> have to ask you probably should go with D1. I say this because someone who is
> aware of the issues present in the language is able to decide if their
> desired project would be hindered by
Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:43:37 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:16:54 -0500, Walter Bright
> wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> I can't buy "enterprise" support,
>>
>> Of course you can!
>
> No really, I can't afford it ;)
>
> But seriously, I find it hard to bel
On Monday, January 31, 2011 11:31:29 Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Trass3r Wrote:
> > > I've chosen to only work with D1/Tango from start, and I simply don't
> > > recognize the frustration many are feeling. I'm only concerned over
> > > that there ARE quite a few developers that seems to have been turne
Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:53:34 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, January 31, 2011 11:31:29 Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> Trass3r Wrote:
>> > > I've chosen to only work with D1/Tango from start, and I simply
>> > > don't recognize the frustration many are feeling. I'm only
>> > > concerned over tha
On 1/31/11 1:52 PM, retard wrote:
I think the same applies to Phobos 2.. only Andrei knows the design well
enough and knows how it's going to change in the future. No matter how
much time one spends studying D or the ecosystem or how D is used in the
enterprise world, one simply can't obtain any
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
But seriously, I find it hard to believe that you can buy enterprise
support for D if it means that you do the work. There's only one you.
So at some point, you might be spread too thin between adding new
features, posting to this newsgroup, and supporting all ente
retard wrote:
The fact that the final specification and design rationale of D is
undocumented and in Walter's head means that no other person can sell
that kind of deep enterprise support because it's not clear how the
language should work.
Oh rubbish. C++ was highly successful in the enterpr
Although I don't find the original post to be a troll, (despite the
title), I could not resist poking some fun...
Still Alive?
This was a triumph!
I'm making a note here: "HUGE SUCCESS!!"
It's hard to overstate, my satisfaction.
D programming Language:
We do what we must, because w
96 matches
Mail list logo
