On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 at 04:35:40 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> Please list what we've achieved during the hackathon, including what is started but is likely to be finished in the coming days or months.
>
> For me:
>
> - Finished updating "Programming in D" to 2.074.0 (the HTML is now up to date but I could not get to the still manual work of preparing the ebooks)
>
> - Contributed to the logo and branding discussions
>
> - Opened two bugs
>
> - Ate German cookies :)
>
> Ali

I:

1. Started a PR adding -Xcc switch to LDC [1].

2. Discussed a solution to [2] and [3] with Sönke, implementation is in progress.

3. Briefly went through sources of Stefan's CTFE implementation. To me it was also a good quick lesson about part of DMD internals I didn't know yet, and I hope I'll be able to review his code from time to time and motivate him.

4. Got a ton of inspiration and motivation.

[1] https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/2104
[2] https://github.com/dlang/dub/issues/628
[3] https://github.com/dlang/dub/issues/228

On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 at 13:19:12 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> But it was very awesome to be able to go around and find the people to discuss a PR/idea without going through a forum thread. I think there's a psychological barrier that happens when you post a complete argument, and then your counterpart forms an interpretation in their mind of what the argument means, forms their complete counter argument, and neither side really understands what the other is saying or willing to do. Doing it in person allows so much more interaction -- you can cut off early any misinterpretations. It's also harder to be nasty in person :)

+1!
For the same reasons, it's also a lot easier for people who don't use English as their 1st language to express their ideas as one doesn't need to spend time carefully looking up the meaning of words to make sure the "complete argument" will be understood as intended. :)

On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 at 04:35:40 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> Please list what we've achieved during the hackathon, including what is started but is likely to be finished in the coming days or months.

Created a working snap package definition for GDC.  I'm coordinating with Iain on how to get this into the snap store most effectively (having spent a fair bit of the hackathon pestering him with questions about the GDC build procedure:-).

Ironically, given that I'd always been worried this would be the most finnicky compiler snap to create, it's actually the simplest package definition out of all the Big 3 ;-)

I also had a play with using the new `scope return` etc. functionality to prototype a safe design for random algorithms that wrap a pointer to an RNG.  That's probably going to take a while longer to put together, as I've run into some issues that I really need to reduce to a very simple test case.

On Wednesday, 10 May 2017 at 19:46:01 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> Ironically, given that I'd always been worried this would be the most finnicky compiler snap to create, it's actually the simplest package definition out of all the Big 3 ;-)

Without even having seen your snap file, I can confidently say that this is just due to the idiosyncrasies of the snap environment, though.

Oh wait, no, GDC is still stuck on an ancient C++-based frontend. Not too surprising, then. ;P

 — David

On 10 May 2017 at 22:04, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 May 2017 at 19:46:01 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>
>> Ironically, given that I'd always been worried this would be the most finnicky compiler snap to create, it's actually the simplest package definition out of all the Big 3 ;-)
>
>
> Without even having seen your snap file, I can confidently say that this is just due to the idiosyncrasies of the snap environment, though.
>
> Oh wait, no, GDC is still stuck on an ancient C++-based frontend. Not too surprising, then. ;P
>
>  — David

I can only infer that you are saying that using a D project means it's more difficult to get working with snap.  To which I will insert an obligatory "Woah!", and "I expect you to know better" rebuttal.

...

Woah, I expect you to know better.

Iain.

On 9 May 2017 at 06:35, Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Please list what we've achieved during the hackathon, including what is started but is likely to be finished in the coming days or months.
>

I was frankly a zombie all Sunday, apart from helping Joe setting up the best snap package in the world, I spent the morning rebuilding my toolchain for GCC/GDC-8.  After spending some time away from my laptop, then came back to discover it had died on battery.

At least I managed to remove D compiler support for SH-5.  That was a notable productive task. :-)

On Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 17:56:00 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I can only infer that you are saying that using a D project means it's more difficult to get working with snap.  To which I will insert an obligatory "Woah!", and "I expect you to know better" rebuttal.
>
> ...
>
> Woah, I expect you to know better.

Incorrect. My (implied) statement was that a dependency on D makes the build process more complex *if that project is a D compiler, and you don't want to depend on another one in build-packages*.

 — David

On 11 May 2017 at 22:24, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 17:56:00 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> I can only infer that you are saying that using a D project means it's more difficult to get working with snap.  To which I will insert an obligatory "Woah!", and "I expect you to know better" rebuttal.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Woah, I expect you to know better.
>
>
> Incorrect. My (implied) statement was that a dependency on D makes the build process more complex *if that project is a D compiler, and you don't want to depend on another one in build-packages*.
>
>  — David

My rebuttal still stands.  Switching build from C++ to D should be a one line change, if it isn't then you have a problems with your build process.

On Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 20:54:45 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> My rebuttal still stands.  Switching build from C++ to D should be a one line change, if it isn't then you have a problems with your build process.

How does snap requiring more than a one-line change for a multi-stage build imply that anybody's build process is problematic? — David

On 11 May 2017 at 23:06, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 20:54:45 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> My rebuttal still stands.  Switching build from C++ to D should be a one line change, if it isn't then you have a problems with your build process.
>
>
> How does snap requiring more than a one-line change for a multi-stage build imply that anybody's build process is problematic? — David

Oh, do you have to do the multi-stage build yourself?  I don't. :-)

Iain.