On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:08:16 UTC, Mike wrote:
* Drop the GC or at a minimum make it opt-in. Add a borrow
checker, automatic reference counting, or some other GC
alternative that doesn't require a separate thread.
AIUI D's GC doesn't use a separate thread:
https://dlang.org/spec/garb
On Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 18:26:57 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
In essence he is saying we should have immutable code releases.
For example he would say that we should add a new namespace and
not get rid of the original (std2.io, std2.xml, std2.json) now
you can get your improvements out and n
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 19:12:36 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
You only need one, AST macros ;)
Not going to happen anytime soon, as we do not have much interest
in DSL abuse.
Here are some ways that D3 can be an improvement of D2:
-Final by default
-A standard library that is effective with or without garbage
collection
100% OK about the optional garbage collector, but I have to
totally disagree with you on the "final by default" approach.
The curr
On Sunday, 18 June 2017 at 12:05:37 UTC, Suliman wrote:
And not every people need to interfacing with C/C++. For me
it's more important to have static-typing and compilable
alternative to Python. And a lot of people whom I know want
same.
I see this a lot, but then you have to ask yourself ho
But C++ will still be big in 10 years.
Ok, let's assume it will be poplar in 10 years. But it's very
short time. D exists almost 17 years.
And not every people need to interfacing with C/C++. For me it's
more important to have static-typing and compilable alternative
to Python. And a lot of p
On Sunday, 18 June 2017 at 07:14:24 UTC, Suliman wrote:
Why for example not Rust (i am not its fan). I do not see any
real perspective in C++. What to do in next 5 years if C++ will
start loosing it's popularity? Implement D4?
Plus any backwards compatibility make implementation new ideas
in
Why for example not Rust (i am not its fan). I do not see any
real perspective in C++. What to do in next 5 years if C++ will
start loosing it's popularity? Implement D4?
Plus any backwards compatibility make implementation new ideas in
language very hard.
limitation on it's uses.
At the very least, dropping C++ compatibility is not for D3. If
ever, it should happen when D is already as popular as C++. I
brought up this whole D3 idea because I feel like D just needs
one more wave of breaking changes to the language and library to
be broug
t's not going to
matter in 10 or 20 years.
Thank you for making a list to give people an idea of what D3
could be, but I definitely don't support less interoperability
with C++. I want D3 to have a better argument to transition
from C++ than D2 has. With all the C++ API's out t
On Saturday, 17 June 2017 at 04:32:41 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
I hope that Walter and Andrei give a proper response to this
thread. I wonder why they haven't.
They rarely give definitive answers... except after the fact,
once it is already in master.
On Saturday, 17 June 2017 at 04:32:41 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:08:16 UTC, Mike wrote:
> THINGS TO DROP
--
* C++ interoperabiliy
Walter's right: memory safety is going to kill C and C++ will
go with it. Don't waste time on this; it's not going t
ing a list to give people an idea of what D3
could be, but I definitely don't support less interoperability
with C++. I want D3 to have a better argument to transition from
C++ than D2 has. With all the C++ API's out there, making D
incompatible would be a ginormous deal-breaker for a ri
On Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 18:02:54 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
We need automatic deterministic destruction (and we partially
have it, using scope(exit) and structs RAII).
Not sure what exactly you are expecting, tbh.
I'm not advocating for a language change here.
As I said, we already have
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 09:38:06 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray
wrote:
I'd be in favor of finally deprecating all sub-standard phobos
module (moving them to https://github.com/dlang/undeaD) to make
room for good implementations. Havi
On Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 17:06:31 UTC, Sebastien Alaiwan
wrote:
On Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 15:04:26 UTC, Suliman wrote:
Should D really move to GC-free? I think there is already
enough GC-free language on the market. D even now is very
complected language, and adding ways to manually mana
On Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 15:04:26 UTC, Suliman wrote:
Should D really move to GC-free? I think there is already
enough GC-free language on the market. D even now is very
complected language, and adding ways to manually managing
memory will make it's more complicated.
We need automatic det
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 09:38:06 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
I'd be in favor of finally deprecating all sub-standard phobos
module (moving them to https://github.com/dlang/undeaD) to make
room for good implementations. Having a vacant place might be
more encouraging than to wait for somethin
On Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 15:04:26 UTC, Suliman wrote:
Should D really move to GC-free? I think there is already
enough GC-free language on the market. D even now is very
complected language, and adding ways to manually managing
memory will make it's more complicated.
A lot of people need
Should D really move to GC-free? I think there is already enough
GC-free language on the market. D even now is very complected
language, and adding ways to manually managing memory will make
it's more complicated.
A lot of people need more powerful static-typing alternative to
Python/C# for c
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 22:01:38 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
It's a bigger problem for D than for those languages. If you
introduce too many changes, the tools stop working, and we
don't have the manpower to fix them. The same goes for
libraries. A language with a larger group of developers, li
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:08:16 UTC, Mike wrote:
* immutable by default
I have to admit I always get confused why people get so invested
in this. It seems like you would have to completely redesign
everything related to std.range/std.algorithm.
Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
Is D perfect? No, not by any stretch of the definition, but it is still
(by far) the least worst choice out there, no matter how good the tooling
for other languages is or becomes.
exactly my feelings! ;-)
On Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 07:32:42 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
The GC is the single major factor for D in a world of C++17,
Rust, and Go:
An opinion. Mine is this: The two major factors for D are (and
have been for as long as I've been using it):
1. Productivity (i.e. focusing on writing actu
Wulfklaue wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 21:20:58 UTC, ketmar wrote:
yeah. D should silently miscompile old code too: it seems that this is
exactly what people want!
Please point out the people who advocate for D silently miscompiling old
code... Because i have yet to see anybody in th
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 21:20:58 UTC, ketmar wrote:
yeah. D should silently miscompile old code too: it seems that
this is exactly what people want!
Please point out the people who advocate for D silently
miscompiling old code... Because i have yet to see anybody in
this topic advocate
On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 21:55 +, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> […]
>
> I'm not saying all old code should compile without changes, just
> that it should compile with only minor changes. I know that in
> some cases new releases of DMD have stopped compiling pieces of
> my code that shou
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 20:35:15 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
If a code is to be left untouched but the compiler not
archived then the code must be recompiled and amended as
needed with each new compiler that is accepted
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 11:57 +, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
I've been using D for four years. I can still compile code
that compiled with DMD at that time, with only a few minor
modifications. I expect to be able
H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:45:43PM +0300, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
If a code is to be left untouched but the compiler not archived
then the code must be recompiled and amended
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:45:43PM +0300, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > > If a code is to be left untouched but the compiler not archived
> > > then the code must be recompiled and amended as
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
If a code is to be left untouched but the compiler not archived then the
code must be recompiled and amended as needed with each new compiler
that is accepted in the workflow.
I don't disagree with th
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:22:36 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
If a code is to be left untouched but the compiler not archived
then the code must be recompiled and amended as needed with
each new compiler that is accepted in the workflow.
I don't disagree with the general sentiment than one
On 2017-06-14 11:38, Martin Nowak wrote:
Also without a proposed feature list this discussion is somewhat lame.
You only need one, AST macros ;)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 12:08:16 UTC, Mike wrote:
* Rust is probably the best, but it doesn't have the modeling
power of D and C++.
A lot of the points you mention, i also agree with but
implementing that list is akin to writing a new language. You do
not trow out the baby with the bath
On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 11:57 +, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> I've been using D for four years. I can still compile code that
> compiled with DMD at that time, with only a few minor
> modifications. I expect to be able to do the same four years from
> now.
I suggest this is the
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
I think it's about time for D3 to start developing.
I would love to see a fork of D2 that attempts to address some
obstacles I encountered when I was using D. However, it is quite
apparent that there is little
On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 at 11:34:09 UTC, Wulfklaue wrote:
Just changing the library to D3 and not the base D name will
result in people finding old code, not getting it to work,
getting frustrated and simply ignoring the language. Hey,
despite loving the syntax, did the exact same thing
ankly D is a generic
name ( Mars was not much better ). When Googling for D code, the
results are hit or miss. When Googling for Dlang, it tries to
search on GoLang. Marketing is hard when your product is so
generic named ( double pun is intended ) :)
Just changing the library to D3 and not the
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
I'd be in favor of finally deprecating all sub-standard phobos
module (moving them to https://github.com/dlang/undeaD) to make
room for good implementations. Having a vacant place might be
more encouraging than to wait for some
On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 07:28:34 Wulfklaue via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Unless i am wrong there seem to be only one or two people
> actually pushing this D3 idea...
It comes up periodically, because there's some change that someone wants
that will never make it into D2. Historicall
Wulfklaue wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 20:51:37 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Patrick Schluter wrote:
the main reason for D3 is not language changes, but workarounding "don't
break user code" thingy. it is completely impossible to experiment
freely or introduce breaking chang
On 14/06/2017 8:28 AM, Wulfklaue wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 20:51:37 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Patrick Schluter wrote:
the main reason for D3 is not language changes, but workarounding
"don't break user code" thingy. it is completely impossible to
experiment freely or int
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 20:51:37 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Patrick Schluter wrote:
the main reason for D3 is not language changes, but
workarounding "don't break user code" thingy. it is completely
impossible to experiment freely or introduce breaking changes
in D2 (for a r
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 17:57:14 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
Before even contemplating a big disrupting language split like
proposed by the OP, wouldn't it first more appropriate to write
a nice article, DIP, blog, whatever, listing the defects of the
current language that can not be solve
crimaniak wrote:
If it depended on me, I would declare an embargo on language changes
that's why we (me, and others like me ;-) need D3. i don't need "better
phobos", for example ('cause i'm trying to aboid using phobos anyway), but
i really need named argumen
ven't the impression that the *language* itself suffer from so big
flaws that it would warrant to fork it in a way that will lead to a lot
frustration and bewilderment.
D is not perfect, no question, but it is not in a state that would
jusrify such a harsh approach.
the main reason for
jmh530 wrote:
Nevertheless, C++ is still a constantly evolving language.
one of the key features of evolution is removing old and rudimentary
things. without this, it is not evolution, it is mutilation...
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 17:57:14 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
I haven't the impression that the *language* itself suffer from
so big flaws that it would warrant to fork it in a way that
will lead to a lot frustration and bewilderment.
I have the same opinion. Raw libraries, poor documentat
Before even contemplating a big disrupting language split like
proposed by the OP, wouldn't it first more appropriate to write a
nice article, DIP, blog, whatever, listing the defects of the
current language that can not be solved by progressive evolution?
I haven't the impression that the *lang
retired. We're all better off for it. A vastly different
situation than what happened with Python, where you find 2.x
releases continuing on and some projects requiring one or the
other.
That said, at this stage, I can't imagine a D2/D3 transition
being anything other than negatively disruptive.
r/more clear/etc. while it's hard
to sell "constantly evolving" language to Big Enterprise
Wheels, not making breaking changes means cloning worst C++
feature. ;-)
Companies clearly value C++'s backwards compatibility. However,
if there's one lesson from the D1/D2 or the P
Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:
My point precisely was that "not splitting D1/D2" might correspond to
"doing things right".
"not splitting" here means "we're stuck with D1". deprecation cycle of
several years (not counting the time required to actually *start* the
process) means "no evolution".
i
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 at 06:56:14 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 17:59:54 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Guillaume Piolat wrote:
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray
wrote:
I realize that there are people who want to continue using
D as
Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 17:59:54 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Guillaume Piolat wrote:
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
I realize that there are people who want to continue using D as it is,
but those people may continue to use D2.
Well, n
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 17:59:54 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Guillaume Piolat wrote:
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray
wrote:
I realize that there are people who want to continue using D
as it is, but those people may continue to use D2.
Well, no thanks.
The very same str
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
D is a language with much promise, but it still has many
problems that prevent it from being the great replacement for
C++ that it was always meant to be.
[...]
I anyone seeing the "i think" "I think"...statements?
It's not
n impossible to change something and keep old
feature still working. it also require considerably more efforts to support
old and new feature set simultaneously. while D2 can continue evolving (and
it surely will!), having D3, where keeping old code working is not a
concern, can be useful.
n
otherwise, accumulated legacy will
inevitably turn D into another C++, and somebody will create E
(or something ;-). why don't create E outselves, and call it D3
instead?
E already exists
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(programming_language) +
AmigaE), two things having the same name often doom
er. otherwise,
accumulated legacy will inevitably turn D into another C++, and somebody
will create E (or something ;-). why don't create E outselves, and call it
D3 instead?
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 17:59:54 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Well, no thanks.
The very same strategy halved the community for D1/D2 split
and almost killed D.
as you can see, D is alive and kicking, and nothing disasterous
or fatal happens.
https://forum.dlang.org/search?q=%22D2%22+destroyed+auth
language, but they were rejected as they would inevitably cause
breaking changes. I think that breaking changes are something
to be careful about, and they can definitely be a nuisance to
adapt to. But they must happen once in a while for things to
advance.
I think it's about time for D3 to
Mike B Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 06:14:43 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Mike B Johnson wrote:
Yeah, sounds good, because to make progress, progress has to be made.
Most people are very shortsighted and live in a fear based mentality.
Mention any type of change and they nearly shit thems
Guillaume Piolat wrote:
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
I realize that there are people who want to continue using D as it is,
but those people may continue to use D2.
Well, no thanks.
The very same strategy halved the community for D1/D2 split and almost
k
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 05:24:25 UTC, ketmar wrote:
and D1.5 too. sure it should be forked from D2, and then it should be
made *smaller*. which, essentially, makes it D1.5, not D3. besides, it
will be very fun explaining people that we
D--?
Out of curiosity
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 05:24:25 UTC, ketmar wrote:
and D1.5 too. sure it should be forked from D2, and then it
should be made *smaller*. which, essentially, makes it D1.5,
not D3. besides, it will be very fun explaining people that we
D--?
Out of curiosity; wouldn't it be better to
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 12:22:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/11/17 5:14 AM, Cym13 wrote:
Building on that: 82% of patches for Mozilla Firefox are
accepted at first sight.
Thanks for referring the paper, I'll read it on the plane.
Facebook's rate would be probably comparable. An im
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 12:22:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/11/17 5:14 AM, Cym13 wrote:
Building on that: 82% of patches for Mozilla Firefox are
accepted at first sight.
Thanks for referring the paper, I'll read it on the plane.
Facebook's rate would be probably comparable. An im
On 6/11/17 5:14 AM, Cym13 wrote:
Building on that: 82% of patches for Mozilla Firefox are accepted at
first sight.
Thanks for referring the paper, I'll read it on the plane. Facebook's
rate would be probably comparable. An important detail: is that the rate
for internal developers or public c
just continue using D2 as they
are. Even after D3 is stabilized, D2 could have continued
support until nobody wants it.
sorry, i was overreading those lines of yours
in my opinion starting with D3 is too early, because D-people
dont even seem to know how exactly to implement new exciting
features like "reference counting" (and how will "reference
counting" work together with the new "scope"-feature?).
So, if a D3 gets develop
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
I realize that there are people who want to continue using D as
it is, but those people may continue to use D2.
Well, no thanks.
The very same strategy halved the community for D1/D2 split and
almost killed D.
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 06:14:43 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Mike B Johnson wrote:
Yeah, sounds good, because to make progress, progress has to
be made. Most people are very shortsighted and live in a fear
based mentality. Mention any type of change and they nearly
shit themselves and never actuall
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:22:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:06:13 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Dev resources are stretched thin as it is, I doubt the core
team would go for it.
I think dev resources are thin because of mismanagement by the
core team failing to attract an
Mike B Johnson wrote:
Yeah, sounds good, because to make progress, progress has to be made.
Most people are very shortsighted and live in a fear based mentality.
Mention any type of change and they nearly shit themselves and never
actually think about the consequence of those changes. They jus
Seb wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:37:09 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I think dev resources are thin because of mismanagement by the core
team failing to attract and retain contributors. Part of this
mismanagement is a really discouraging attitude toward positive yet
breakin
Liam McGillivray wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:27:06 UTC, ketmar wrote:
..and it actually should be D1.5, not D3. ;-) 'cause D3 implies even
more features, and i feel that the way to get The Perfect D (sorry! ;-)
is trying to cut all the features that aren't strictly
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 05:03:10 UTC, Suliman wrote:
There is already something like D3 exists.
https://github.com/VoltLang
https://github.com/VoltLang/Watt/blob/97507a202250af96560317f84c29cb2248ae588b/src/watt/algorithm.volt#L37-L91
I don't think so.
There is already something like D3 exists.
https://github.com/VoltLang
just continue using D2 as they
are. Even after D3 is stabilized, D2 could have continued
support until nobody wants it.
Here is my suggestion for how to migrate into D3 well, if it were
to be done:
First define a "Small D2". The goal of this language is to not
really be that much s
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:27:06 UTC, ketmar wrote:
..and it actually should be D1.5, not D3. ;-) 'cause D3 implies
even more features, and i feel that the way to get The Perfect
D (sorry! ;-) is trying to cut all the features that aren't
strictly necessary (including fat-free std
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:37:09 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I think dev resources are thin because of mismanagement by the
core team failing to attract and retain contributors. Part of
this mismanagement is a really discouraging attitude toward
positive yet breaking change; I p
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:37:09 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:06:13 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Dev resources are stretched thin as it is, I doubt the core
team would go for it.
I think dev resources are thin because of mismanagement by the
core team faili
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:06:13 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Dev resources are stretched thin as it is, I doubt the core team would
go for it.
I think dev resources are thin because of mismanagement by the core team
failing to attract and retain contributors. Part of this mism
Liam McGillivray wrote:
I feel like D3 would see significantly wider adoption than D2 ever got,
as long as it successfully solves the problems of D2.
..and it actually should be D1.5, not D3. ;-) 'cause D3 implies even more
features, and i feel that the way to get The Perfect D (
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 at 00:06:13 UTC, Joakim wrote:
Dev resources are stretched thin as it is, I doubt the core
team would go for it.
I think dev resources are thin because of mismanagement by the
core team failing to attract and retain contributors. Part of
this mismanagement is a really
language, but they were rejected as they would inevitably cause
breaking changes. I think that breaking changes are something
to be careful about, and they can definitely be a nuisance to
adapt to. But they must happen once in a while for things to
advance.
I think it's about time for D3 to
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
I'd be fascinated by a revised D like language, say D3 or
whatever.
Here are some ways that D3 can be an improvement of D2:
-Final by default
Wow, after all that, this is it? I think final by default would
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 at 23:30:18 UTC, Liam McGillivray wrote:
D is a language with much promise, but it still has many
problems that prevent it from being the great replacement for
C++ that it was always meant to be.
[...]
FYI: There also has been a recent debate about developing a new
changes. I think that breaking changes are something to
be careful about, and they can definitely be a nuisance to adapt
to. But they must happen once in a while for things to advance.
I think it's about time for D3 to start developing. So many
suggestions for language changes
I suggest to call it "The D".
On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 20:21:51 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12/8/14, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
It seems that D3 is already available:
https://github.com/mbostock/d3
Guess we'll just have to skip a number and call the next D -
D4. :)
How ab
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 07:40 +, thedeemon via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 at 08:15:02 UTC, Puming wrote:
>
> > For Chinese it would be "帝" which pronounces the same as 'D'
> > and means Emperor.
>
> In Thai language "ดี" pronounces "dee" and means "good".
That just has
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 at 08:15:02 UTC, Puming wrote:
For Chinese it would be "帝" which pronounces the same as 'D'
and means Emperor.
In Thai language "ดี" pronounces "dee" and means "good".
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 15:53:59 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I find the obsession with small integers (aka version numbers)
rather
petty. We should start with some random number, like 49183029,
What about assigning a prime number to each semantic concept in
the language
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 at 08:15:02 UTC, Puming wrote:
For Chinese it would be "帝" which pronounces the same as 'D'
and means Emperor.
An interesting coincidence is that Walter also created the game
Empire :-)
source: I'm Chinese
D2 = D二 = 第二
That was an attempt at a pun, but my Chinese
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 03:35:36PM +, via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 13:55:22 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
> >Cribbing from the dubious wisdom of Mozilla and ISO, we can catch up
> >in the version numbering race and call the next one D11. Followed,
> >naturally, by D100. ;)
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 13:55:22 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
Cribbing from the dubious wisdom of Mozilla and ISO, we can
catch up in the version numbering race and call the next one
D11. Followed, naturally, by D100. ;)
Som alternatives:
- Unary notation: D1, D11, D111, D…
- Roman: DI,
On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 20:21:51 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12/8/14, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
It seems that D3 is already available:
https://github.com/mbostock/d3
Guess we'll just have to skip a number and call the next D -
D4. :)
That
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 00:58:59 UTC, Chris Williams
wrote:
On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 20:21:51 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 12/8/14, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
It seems that D3 is already available:
https://github.com/mbostock/d3
Guess we&#x
1 - 100 of 301 matches
Mail list logo
