On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 15:02:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:
OK, I finally know what you disagree with. The fundamental
problem is that without commercial funding, all OSS
contributions are voluntary, usually done during their spare
time, while focused design takes time, a lot of it. Without
c
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 14:35:53 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 14:24:57 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 07:18:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 04:57:11 UTC, Joakim wrote:
It is amazing that D has gotten s
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 14:24:57 UTC, Joakim wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 07:18:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 04:57:11 UTC, Joakim wrote:
It is amazing that D has gotten so far as an OSS project
without commercial backing, a credit to the engi
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 07:18:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 04:57:11 UTC, Joakim wrote:
It is amazing that D has gotten so far as an OSS project
without commercial backing, a credit to the engineering sense
of Walter and the core team. But I don't thi
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 04:57:11 UTC, Joakim wrote:
It is amazing that D has gotten so far as an OSS project
without commercial backing, a credit to the engineering sense
of Walter and the core team. But I don't think you can
organize your way around that fundamental obstacle.
I don't
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 01:08:31 UTC, Meta wrote:
No. The only part you may have had in ushering in @nogc is
putting the idea out there (although I'm pretty sure Manu and
Bearophile were advocating it long before that). @nogc was
brought about because Johannes Pfau had the initiative to
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 22:12:06 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:20:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 01/25/2016 11:02 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I don't think we should read *too* much into the words.
Yeah, it's interesting. I recall thinking as I was draf
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 20:34:40 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
D added @nogc YEARS ago, because I pushed the point that the GC
would never be a viable option for real time programmers.
No. The only part you may have had in ushering in @nogc is
putting the idea out there (although I'm p
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 19:41:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
... There definitely is room in the top ranks for one or more
folks of that caliber. -- Andrei
Scott Meyers!
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:20:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Yeah, it's interesting. I recall thinking as I was drafting the
document: "One word... ONE word that doesn't sit well and it
will be all about that word." And now here we are. It's like
those presidential or Fed chairman pre
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:20:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 01/25/2016 11:02 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I don't think we should read *too* much into the words.
Yeah, it's interesting. I recall thinking as I was drafting the
document: "One word... ONE word that doesn't sit well and
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 18:45:43 UTC, JohnCK wrote:
Please, you've exposed your opinion and Andrei already changed
the document using "contributors". Engaging on this matter will
be just a waste of time. Let's focus on D itself.
Again you make an authoritarian statement "Engaging on this
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 18:52:00 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 18:30:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:05:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I think more realistic name distinction would be "core team",
"collaborators" and "contributors".
LOL. I wa
On 1/25/16 1:48 PM, rsw0x wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:14:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
In case you missed it from the announce forum:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
We are still shorthanded with all aspects of D development: top
leadership,
I'd be interested
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 18:30:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:05:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I think more realistic name distinction would be "core team",
"collaborators" and "contributors".
LOL. I was just reading the section on that in "The Design and
Imple
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 18:37:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:31:50 UTC, JohnCK wrote:
...
And please don't waste your time answering this.
So you are basically in favour of censorship? Which is an
authoritarian mode of leadership. Thus you don't mind
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:14:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
In case you missed it from the announce forum:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
We are still shorthanded with all aspects of D development: top
leadership,
I'd be interested in seeing someone with good
leade
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:38:01 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:14:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
In case you missed it from the announce forum:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
Maybe we should finally decide what color to paint the bikeshed?
Probab
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:31:50 UTC, JohnCK wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:02:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:45:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
Please guys don't get stuck on small things like this. I'm
seeing this behavior growing up in here.
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:05:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
I think more realistic name distinction would be "core team",
"collaborators" and "contributors".
LOL. I was just reading the section on that in "The Design and
Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System" yesterday. What
timing.
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 17:18:40 UTC, kldjlkd wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:45:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Of course we have horizontal and organic ways of organizing
civil society.
breaking news, the civil society has a horizontal
organization...
What a joke.
Read t
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:02:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:45:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
That does not reflect the incredibly dull day-to-day army life.
I don't think we should read *too* much into the words.
For individualistic people that have
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:20:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 01/25/2016 11:02 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I don't think we should read *too* much into the words.
Yeah, it's interesting. I recall thinking as I was drafting the
document: "One word... ONE word that doesn't sit well and
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:45:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:28:47 UTC, kldjlkd wrote:
You deny the whole modern history with such a speech.
That's a bold statement with no argument to back it up.
The current state of human being, with all its histor
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 16:02:09 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:45:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
That does not reflect the incredibly dull day-to-day army life.
I don't think we should read *too* much into the words.
Whether we call them collaborators or
On 01/25/2016 11:02 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I don't think we should read *too* much into the words.
Yeah, it's interesting. I recall thinking as I was drafting the
document: "One word... ONE word that doesn't sit well and it will be all
about that word." And now here we are. It's like those
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:45:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
That does not reflect the incredibly dull day-to-day army life.
I don't think we should read *too* much into the words.
Whether we call them collaborators or middle managers or
lieutenants or what isn't as important as act
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:28:47 UTC, kldjlkd wrote:
You deny the whole modern history with such a speech.
That's a bold statement with no argument to back it up.
The current state of human being, with all its history and
experience, is that so far we haven't found any better solution
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:14:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
In case you missed it from the announce forum:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
Maybe we should finally decide what color to paint the bikeshed?
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:02:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 14:37:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
The name isn't that bad, but the authority question is...
lieutenants would need enough documentation to make decisions
on their own that they can be confident
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 15:02:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
The military is a rigid blind bureaucracy
That's kinda my point though, we can't even do bureaucracy
because the rules aren't there so "lieutenants" would be
completely lost, and we can't do autonomy because nobody is clea
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:14:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
In case you missed it from the announce forum:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
Whats about reference counting as a main memory manager? It would
be nice for low level programming where I cannot use GC and wan
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 14:37:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 05:19:41 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Since everybody is a volunteer, this is how it will be
organized anyway, just pointing out that almost nobody wants
to be called a lieutenant! :)
The name isn't that bad,
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 14:37:36 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
The name isn't that bad, but the authority question is...
lieutenants would need enough documentation to make decisions
on their own that they can be confident are correct and
accepted by the leadership. We don't have that, so app
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 05:19:41 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Since everybody is a volunteer, this is how it will be
organized anyway, just pointing out that almost nobody wants to
be called a lieutenant! :)
The name isn't that bad, but the authority question is...
lieutenants would need enough d
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 05:19:41 UTC, Joakim wrote:
- Don't discount the debate on the newsgroup. I lurked in the
newsgroup for years before I got involved, to see what kinds of
decisions were being made and how the process worked. Yes,
everybody would rather debate than chip in, but ta
On 2016-01-25 06:19, Joakim wrote:
- I don't understand this section:
"This needs to be balanced with the false notion that any contribution
must receive attention in proportion to the effort expended on it. 'I
wrote a DIP therefore it must be worked on' quickly becomes 'There's no
purpose in t
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:14:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
In case you missed it from the announce forum:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
Some comments:
- I'm not sure number of PRs is worth measuring, maybe a better
metric would be number of devs submitting a PR, es
On Monday, 25 January 2016 at 03:14:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
In case you missed it from the announce forum:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
Is there a list or a proper place to put the list of
desired/asked/necessary tools together with their purpose?
In case you missed it from the announce forum:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2016H1 -- Andrei
40 matches
Mail list logo
