Dicebot:

> It sounds like you have overly positive memories of D1. Working with it daily and especially dealing with all the compiler bugs we had back then

I used to find a new D1 compiler bug about every 20 lines of my code. This isn't nice.

Bye,
bearophile

does that mean, that sociomantics is writing crappy, fault prone
and unusable software?
they are the praised light on D's sky when evangelizing D, even
if everybody thinks they are using D2.
are they dumb or just uneducated?



On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 14:27:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 14:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:54:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:16:32 UTC, eles wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 12:59:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 15:49:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> What would be the point of it? D1 is almost absolutely inferior to D2 (both compiler and language) and lacks any better tools recently created by the community.
>>
>> I do not contest that. But will be a less-deceiving entry-point for those that are new to the language, they will bite and would wish to see more...
>
> It sounds like you have overly positive memories of D1. Working with it daily and especially dealing with all the compiler bugs we had back then (and still have with dmd1) - it is hardly an experience I'd want newcomer to have. Lacking quality of the toolchain kills any benefit from the language simplicity.

On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 14:59:58 UTC, newbe wrote:
> does that mean, that sociomantics is writing crappy, fault prone
> and unusable software?
> they are the praised light on D's sky when evangelizing D, even
> if everybody thinks they are using D2.
> are they dumb or just uneducated?

That means that they have huge working code base that can be just simply switched to different language version. If using inferior toolchain didn't result in productivity losses no one would bother upgrading even now.

There is certain sympathy towards D1 as a _language_ but compiler quality as well as toolchain infrastructure is simply non-existent. I dream of being able to use DScanner, mono-d, dfix, ldc/gdc and similar cool things at work.

On 2014-12-27 13:32, Nick Treleaven wrote:

> FWIW Apple's recent Swift has @autoclosure, which is the same as lazy.
> It's needed to implement assert in Swift.

Doesn't Scala have something similar.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 15:13:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-12-27 13:32, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>
>> FWIW Apple's recent Swift has @autoclosure, which is the same as lazy.
>> It's needed to implement assert in Swift.
>
> Doesn't Scala have something similar.

Yes, both Simula and Scala provide call-by-name.

On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 14:27:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 14:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:54:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:16:32 UTC, eles wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 12:59:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 15:49:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> It sounds like you have overly positive memories of D1. Working with it daily and especially dealing with all the compiler bugs we had back then (and still have with dmd1) - it is hardly an experience I'd want newcomer to have. Lacking quality of the toolchain kills any benefit from the language simplicity.

Ypu are comparing the D2 toolchain from today with the D1 toolchain from back then (as the work on the latter stalled when the language was retired, and the bulk of the work on D2 toolchain - and language - was done in the last 1.5-2 years).

Back then I doubt that D2 toolchain was in better shape than D1. Yes, the latter was doomed by the Phobos vs Tango issue, but that wasn't the fault of the language.

But I do not discuss about toolchains, but about the language versions (D1 and D2) themselves. Please, for the remaininig of the discussion, let's not mix the language and the toolchain.

Point is, after so many years, D in its current incarnation (D2) is in the same recurring stage (and I speak about the language): on one hand, need to tie up some knots and ensure consistency and stability of the language. On the other hands, the need to modify the curren design and implement nicer features. I feel that the two conflict too much already.

OTOH, D2's design is far from reaching the ideal, and many ideas needs pushing the frontier even further.

The approach that I had in mind was to let D1 there for peple who need to compile code and let D2 also there for people who need to innovate their code. Then, once a feature is tested and re-tested and the design of it is concidered to be optimal, it is migrated from D2 to D1. It doesn't need to be immediately, but over a span that could e even 6 months. People will have time to adapt their skills and their code to integrate (or take advantage) of the new feature.

Then, the new frontlines would become D1.1 and D2.1.

+1

You are stating the situation absolutely correct! Exactly the
same is happening now what happened with the decision to get a
release version D1 and start with D2.
it has been an experiment ever since with D2 and I quit the rat
race - keeping up with bad docs, features I don't need etc..



On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 16:10:57 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 14:27:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 14:27:38 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:54:24 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 13:16:32 UTC, eles wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 at 12:59:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 15:49:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> It sounds like you have overly positive memories of D1. Working with it daily and especially dealing with all the compiler bugs we had back then (and still have with dmd1) - it is hardly an experience I'd want newcomer to have. Lacking quality of the toolchain kills any benefit from the language simplicity.
>
> Ypu are comparing the D2 toolchain from today with the D1 toolchain from back then (as the work on the latter stalled when the language was retired, and the bulk of the work on D2 toolchain - and language - was done in the last 1.5-2 years).
>
> Back then I doubt that D2 toolchain was in better shape than D1. Yes, the latter was doomed by the Phobos vs Tango issue, but that wasn't the fault of the language.
>
> But I do not discuss about toolchains, but about the language versions (D1 and D2) themselves. Please, for the remaininig of the discussion, let's not mix the language and the toolchain.
>
> Point is, after so many years, D in its current incarnation (D2) is in the same recurring stage (and I speak about the language): on one hand, need to tie up some knots and ensure consistency and stability of the language. On the other hands, the need to modify the curren design and implement nicer features. I feel that the two conflict too much already.
>
> OTOH, D2's design is far from reaching the ideal, and many ideas needs pushing the frontier even further.
>
> The approach that I had in mind was to let D1 there for peple who need to compile code and let D2 also there for people who need to innovate their code. Then, once a feature is tested and re-tested and the design of it is concidered to be optimal, it is migrated from D2 to D1. It doesn't need to be immediately, but over a span that could e even 6 months. People will have time to adapt their skills and their code to integrate (or take advantage) of the new feature.
>
> Then, the new frontlines would become D1.1 and D2.1.

You can't speak about resurrecting language without considering costs of resurrecting the toolchain - unless one wants to write programs exclusively with pen and paper of course.

But I do recognize the troll pattern now, thanks.

On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 16:44:35 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> You can't speak about resurrecting language without considering costs of resurrecting the toolchain - unless one wants to write programs exclusively with pen and paper of course.
>
> But I do recognize the troll pattern now, thanks.

Shh... It is possible to strip down D2.

troll? it doesn't fit your opinion?

well I won't write anymore - therefore you win.



On Saturday, 27 December 2014 at 16:44:35 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> You can't speak about resurrecting language without considering costs of resurrecting the toolchain - unless one wants to write programs exclusively with pen and paper of course.
>
> But I do recognize the troll pattern now, thanks.