On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 15:54:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Personally I feel the downside of having a weekly issue is that only a couple of things "happen" each week. So a random person or more passive D user will get less of a sense that "things are happening".

On the other hand, if a lot happened each week, we'd look excessively unstable...

At least with a weekly thing, we look alive at first glance. There used to be people who look at the homepage and think everything was dead because the design isn't bootstrappy or whatever and thus obviously unmaintained.

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:07:10 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> I'll change it to "thread" on the front page.

How about "Epic Bikeshedding Thread"?

Am 30.11.2015 um 13:52 schrieb Ola Fosheim Grøstad:
> This Week in D is a valuable source for information, but it is also on
> the front page and shapes how D is perceived.
>
> It just doesn't look good or factual when it talks about "flame
> throwing" and "flamewar". I don't think there has been anything that
> warrants that kind of terminology this week. Other weeks, maybe, but
> "flaming" usually refers to prolonged personal attacks.
>
> Maybe one should reconsider the entertainment aspect of the newsletter
> and stick to factual information that is relevant for the reader.
>

A slight correction regarding the background: vibe.d doesn't and didn't use SDLang at all, just DUB does. It's just that its exploration in the context of DUB started quite a while before it became the official package manager, but the vibe.d/DUB split happened before the whole SDLang topic.

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 16:18:37 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> Judging by who is labeled an SJW, I'm one, and mentioning the existence of trans people in a context where their existence is relevant is sufficient to be labeled an SJW.

Really? That sounds bad, hopefully this will pass. Sounds like the trans people are going through the same process as the gays did before them. People who have problems with it probably have some uncertainty about their own identity at some level.

> As for judging a programming language in three seconds...that's a bad analysis of the situation. I left Nim in part because Araq was, shall we say, less than friendly.

Oh well, but Araq is a mild breeze compared to the D citizens!!! There are plenty of people here that like to show off and prefer to go through the roof rather than having someone kindly bring them back to earth...

But some of us are very reasonable!! Like I decided not to hit you back for wrongly claiming that my "O(N)" should have been "O(infinity)" and that unqualified "big-oh" usually means "average complexity" (when lazy comp sci people use unqualified big-oh it always means worst case :-) But since I am going there anyway: average complexity analysis isn't something you can do on the back of a napkin, first you have to define a model for the input, then you have to transform it into something that can be dealt with, like a recurrence relation, then an integral that you solve analytically etc. So if it common for people around you to talk about average complexity analysis a lot then they probably have no idea what they are talking about. Average complexity is mostly of academic interest (publish or perish!) and insanely boring. In fact it is so boring, that the professor who taught the topic on my university started the lecture series by saying "I am sorry to say this, but this topic is very boring. I wish I could say that it will become better as we progress through this course, but it won't. It will remain boring throughout."

In the time it takes to do an average analysis of algorithm you can implement and benchmark it many times with much more useful results. So the next time you meet someone who boasts about their average analysis skills... be highly sceptical, they are probably bluffing. :^)

I guess this was off topic.

On 12/01/2015 11:21 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> At least with a weekly thing, we look alive at first glance. There used
> to be people who look at the homepage and think everything was dead
> because the design isn't bootstrappy or whatever and thus obviously
> unmaintained.

FWIW to me a weekly is the sweet spot. There could be weeks where few things happen, like in July or whatever. "Slow week. Walter on vacation in Tibet teaching monks D and conga. Andrei got a fish tank and argues existentialism with a clam. Martin reportedly wrote a small script only with his left pinky." -- Andrei

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:18:47 +0000, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 16:18:37 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>> Judging by who is labeled an SJW, I'm one, and mentioning the existence of trans people in a context where their existence is relevant is sufficient to be labeled an SJW.
> 
> Really? That sounds bad, hopefully this will pass. Sounds like the trans people are going through the same process as the gays did before them. People who have problems with it probably have some uncertainty about their own identity at some level.

Gay *people*. Not gays.

>> As for judging a programming language in three seconds...that's a bad analysis of the situation. I left Nim in part because Araq was, shall we say, less than friendly.
> 
> Oh well, but Araq is a mild breeze compared to the D citizens!!! There are plenty of people here that like to show off and prefer to go through the roof rather than having someone kindly bring them back to earth...

Araq is the leader of the project. His attitudes weigh much more strongly than those of other people in the community.

> But some of us are very reasonable!! Like I decided not to hit you back

Remind me to give you a cookie when you're in town.

> for wrongly claiming that my "O(N)" should have been "O(infinity)"

I believe you claimed O(N) searches would guarantee that the item reached the head of the list. His algorithm allowed you not to swap the position of the found element. He made this clear -- first he said that the range was inclusive, and later he even pointed out that, because it was inclusive, it would reduce the number of swaps near the head of the list.

Since it's possible for each search for an item not to result in a swap, it is not guaranteed that searching for the same item repeatedly will ever move that item to the head of the list.

> and
> that unqualified "big-oh" usually means "average complexity"

Context matters.

> (when lazy
> comp sci people use unqualified big-oh it always means worst case :-)
> But since I am going there anyway: average complexity analysis isn't
> something you can do on the back of a napkin

But doing an average case complexity for exactly one simple case where the only random variable is the random number generator is often pretty easy. And that's what Andrei did.

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 17:36:06 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> Gay *people*. Not gays.

Oh well, I'm norwegian. I am indifferent to such nuances, I don't get the difference :). I think "gay people" in norwegian could be offensive too depending on how you phrase it, it could mark distance as in "those gay people that are not like us".

I've always just assumed that when Kathy Griffin can yell "ALL MY GAYS!" from a stage to applause then it is what one are supposed to say.

> Remind me to give you a cookie when you're in town.

I will!

> clear -- first he said that the range was inclusive, and later he even pointed out that, because it was inclusive, it would reduce the number of swaps near the head of the list.

Oh whatever :^), it was sloppy. See below.

> But doing an average case complexity for exactly one simple case where the only random variable is the random number generator is often pretty easy. And that's what Andrei did.

My position is that you cannot assume that you can move from there to the average analysis for the algorithm as a whole, but since this is such a boring topic, let's let it pass and then we can discuss it later when you bring me my cookie! :)