I am sure nobody will disagree with this post. Thing is, whenever there are people, there will be disagreements. I remember "final by default" vs "virtual by default" thread. I remember people whining and leaving the D community for X various reasons.

What made me personally stick to D is that I humbly believe people who drive the project have clear ideas where do we go.

I know some will disagree with me, but I will say it anyway: IT community, especially developers, are known for poor social skills... People tend to forget that...

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 11:46:44 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> That's why I differentiated between getting a team on the same page and high-quality coherent designs.  The former may get more done, but usually not at high quality.  Read up more at the Linus links I gave to get the alternate perspective, of how to do it _without_ consensus.

Linux is not a good example. Linux is too high profile and can afford massive churn. That is highly inefficient use of programmer resources.


> On the other hand, that means only those who really know or are willing to spend the time learning the codebase can compete with you, ie new competition can't get going as fast.  There are both pros and cons to being early.

Mostly cons. There are very few potential customers. And most likely no local customers, which are the most attractive ones.


> How is Loci in any way a fork of D?  It may be similar in its features and goals, but it doesn't appear to fork any dmd or D code.

I didn't say fork. I was talking about people who have given up on the D development process and created their own language in the same catagory as C++ and D.


> If you believe those languages' priorities are "not entirely well founded," that's an opportunity for you to get it right. :)

Sure, I'm thinking about it. But I currently think WebAssembly/JavaScript + Linux server are the most important targets, so maybe going from scratch is less work, actually.

But sure, building a new language over Rust, D or Go is an option.


> As the original post noted, both need and want are irrelevant, if you're unwilling to code.

Nobody are unwilling to code. Most people are unwilling to manage a project or invest in a project that isn't properly managed.  What you need is a well managed project with a clear vision, clear goals and good leadership.

And please don't point at Linus, he is not a particularly effective leader, but probably does well as a manager. But Posix was already given... The broad strokes for a monolithic kernel is kinda given. He just happend to whip up something at the right time, that many people had been looking for (free unix).

> I don't use or follow C++, but stuff like CTFE has been mentioned in this forum before.

Well, constexpr functions can replace convoluted template programming. Not sure if that is related to D.

> A lot of solo devs using D to go in the same general direction will work too, probably a lot better than consensus.

Well, not sure what we are talking about here. Clearly, you need consensus among said devs if you are going to change the language so that it can either support better manual memory managment or faster garbage collection?

> According to Linus, linux never had such a consensus, why did it succeed?

Because there was no free Unix on x86 and the CPUs at that point in time had MMUs. Many people who used Unix at work or on campus wanted Unix at home too. Many students used Minix in their OS course, and disliked the non-free license. So you basically had a fairly large group of people willing to throw in weeks and months, if not years in the early stages of the project.

>> Yes. But it could be simple. Like.
>>
>> 1. full feature freeze
>> 2. heavy refactoring
>> 3. full documentation of module x, y and z.
>>
>> + some details on goals and planning
>
> Such restarts rarely work out in the best of circumstances, ie a company with lots of money, even more so in a volunteer community.  Not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, just that incremental improvement is more likely.

Refactoring and documentation isn't a restart.

It is common hygiene!


> But python has not emerged from that scripting language niche either, and I think you greatly overestimate how well C++11 is doing.

Python was inspired by a language used for teaching programming, but was geared to more advanced programmers. Not sure what you mean by Python not having emerged?

> Those who want D to specialize more should heed Linus's words.

Can you paraphase those words in a condensed manner that is relevant to programming languages? I don't get the argument.

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 12:47:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 11:46:44 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> That's why I differentiated between getting a team on the same page and high-quality coherent designs.  The former may get more done, but usually not at high quality.  Read up more at the Linus links I gave to get the alternate perspective, of how to do it _without_ consensus.
>
> Linux is not a good example. Linux is too high profile and can afford massive churn. That is highly inefficient use of programmer resources.

It was not always high-profile, it started off with one guy and grew big through the same decentralized process.

>> On the other hand, that means only those who really know or are willing to spend the time learning the codebase can compete with you, ie new competition can't get going as fast.  There are both pros and cons to being early.
>
> Mostly cons. There are very few potential customers. And most likely no local customers, which are the most attractive ones.

The chicken has to start somewhere, or there will be no eggs. ;)

>> How is Loci in any way a fork of D?  It may be similar in its features and goals, but it doesn't appear to fork any dmd or D code.
>
> I didn't say fork. I was talking about people who have given up on the D development process and created their own language in the same catagory as C++ and D.

You mentioned it in response to forks and how far they've gotten.  That guy gave up on D?

>> If you believe those languages' priorities are "not entirely well founded," that's an opportunity for you to get it right. :)
>
> Sure, I'm thinking about it. But I currently think WebAssembly/JavaScript + Linux server are the most important targets, so maybe going from scratch is less work, actually.
>
> But sure, building a new language over Rust, D or Go is an option.

The loci guy, just a couple years out of university did it, surely you could too, if nobody else is getting it right.

>> As the original post noted, both need and want are irrelevant, if you're unwilling to code.
>
> Nobody are unwilling to code. Most people are unwilling to manage a project or invest in a project that isn't properly managed.  What you need is a well managed project with a clear vision, clear goals and good leadership.
>
> And please don't point at Linus, he is not a particularly effective leader, but probably does well as a manager. But Posix was already given... The broad strokes for a monolithic kernel is kinda given. He just happend to whip up something at the right time, that many people had been looking for (free unix).

In the emails I linked to, he notes that he didn't have a clear vision or goals and that it is _likely impossible to do so for software_.  So he agrees with you that he isn't some great leader, and notes that what's important is the decentralized process, where there is _no clear vision_.

Now, you're right that copying UNIX is easier than coming up with an entirely new technical design, but he claims that the UNIX guys themselves didn't "design" it, that that was an evolutionary, decentralized process also.

>> A lot of solo devs using D to go in the same general direction will work too, probably a lot better than consensus.
>
> Well, not sure what we are talking about here. Clearly, you need consensus among said devs if you are going to change the language so that it can either support better manual memory managment or faster garbage collection?

Not necessarily, Sociomantic didn't wait for permission to go do their own concurrent GC for D1.  One can experiment with various approaches to memory management and come back with actual data.  It doesn't take much time to prototype something and test out ideas, before you make a push for it to be included in the language.

My point is that we're not going to come to a consensus on the best approach to memory management.  Somebody, likely several, will have to try out different approaches locally and then compare results.  Perhaps that will lead to several different GCs shipping with D, tuned for different loads.

>> According to Linus, linux never had such a consensus, why did it succeed?
>
> Because there was no free Unix on x86 and the CPUs at that point in time had MMUs. Many people who used Unix at work or on campus wanted Unix at home too. Many students used Minix in their OS course, and disliked the non-free license. So you basically had a fairly large group of people willing to throw in weeks and months, if not years in the early stages of the project.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question: how did they succeed without prior consensus, which Linus claims was never there?

> Refactoring and documentation isn't a restart.
>
> It is common hygiene!

Right, it's a question of whether we stop everything and take a thorough bath, or clean a little here and there on the go.  There is refactoring constantly going on, and documentation is always tough for OSS projects.

>> But python has not emerged from that scripting language niche either, and I think you greatly overestimate how well C++11 is doing.
>
> Python was inspired by a language used for teaching programming, but was geared to more advanced programmers. Not sure what you mean by Python not having emerged?

I mean it's still a scripting language used for teaching, scripting, and webapps.  Almost nobody is using it for application programming, ie anything outside that scripting niche, say for mobile apps.

>> Those who want D to specialize more should heed Linus's words.
>
> Can you paraphase those words in a condensed manner that is relevant to programming languages? I don't get the argument.

He noted that the UNIX vendors failed because they were highly specialized for certain corporate niches, unlike linux or Windows, and couldn't survive a collapse of that niche, because they weren't general enough to survive in new niches.  Similarly, I'm saying D shouldn't specialize for the same reasons.

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 14:53:37 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> It was not always high-profile, it started off with one guy and grew big through the same decentralized process.

It was fairly popular among students even back when it was not so great. This is not so atypical. Someone fills a void, then it grows. The real enabler was getting access to machines that had MMUs.

> The loci guy, just a couple years out of university did it, surely you could too, if nobody else is getting it right.

I could, in theory. But that would make it my only hobby...

> software_.  So he agrees with you that he isn't some great leader, and notes that what's important is the decentralized process, where there is _no clear vision_.
>
> Now, you're right that copying UNIX is easier than coming up with an entirely new technical design, but he claims that the UNIX guys themselves didn't "design" it, that that was an evolutionary, decentralized process also.

I find that difficult to follow. A Unix kernel is a pretty clear vision...

But Solaris was a much more advanced OS than Linux was, geared towards more complicated setups. I don't think the design of Linux is a major factor, as long as it worked reasonably well.

Linux proliferate because it is the path of least resistance and high installed base. Distributions like Slackware and Debian were probably very important. It's not like end user cared about the kernel all that much. They wanted convenient distributions.

I think people put too much weight on the kernel. It is not all that special.

> compare results.  Perhaps that will lead to several different GCs shipping with D, tuned for different loads.

Well, the problem is that the language itself does not lend itself to effective GC.

If you have a modular compiler, well structured and documented, then it would make sense to change the semantics to see what the effect is.

> That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question: how did they succeed without prior consensus, which Linus claims was never there?

I have no idea what he means. The basic conceptual design of a monolithic Unix kernel is rather well established.

> Right, it's a question of whether we stop everything and take a thorough bath, or clean a little here and there on the go.  There is refactoring constantly going on, and documentation is always tough for OSS projects.

Yes, but I see people repeatedly state in the forums that they they want to try do some work on the compiler, but that they find the code badly structured, undocumented and the process difficult to grasp...

So it probably will pay off, if they actually mean it. For everyone that voice an opinion we probably can add another 5 that choose to be silent?

> I mean it's still a scripting language used for teaching, scripting, and webapps.  Almost nobody is using it for application programming, ie anything outside that scripting niche, say for mobile apps.

Yes, that's true. Although many people use Python in their workflow as a supporting language or even for meta-programming, like generating source for other languages.

> He noted that the UNIX vendors failed because they were highly specialized for certain corporate niches, unlike linux or Windows, and couldn't survive a collapse of that niche, because they weren't general enough to survive in new niches.  Similarly, I'm saying D shouldn't specialize for the same reasons.

I don't think it is comparable, Sun sold hardware and consulting. When the hardware market is undermined by commodity they were left with consulting.

It is better for a business to stay focused, and then sell that aspect of their business when the market is shrinking. Sun was also not dissolved, it was picked up and integrated with Oracle, who benefits from Sun's assets. Microsoft is not a very good counter example either. Nor HP or Motorola. Reorganizing fractured businesses is even more difficult, I would think. It basically means you are trying to make sense of many businesses at once, instead of managing one...

People are not looking for a general purpose language. They are looking for a solution to their particular problem area...

Go
Rust
Swift

All fairly specialized and gaining ground.

On 02/11/2016 06:53 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>
> I know some will disagree with me, but I will say it anyway: IT
> community, especially developers, are known for poor social skills...
> People tend to forget that...

There may be a certain *small* level of truth to that, but most of it is nothing more than decades of Hollywood's pejorative stereotyping. And people being naive enough to believe what they see in the fiction that was produced by people who have spent decades proving themselves to have zero comprehension of basic reality, let alone even a basic high-school level research ability.

It's the standard old Hollywood complete and total disconnect with reality - hell, look how they portray Tourette's a having a relationship to swearing (which is just plain bizarre to anyone actually capable of spending a mere one minute on a basic web search), or how cracking security always involves playing a 3D puzzle game. And then there's the oddity that any time a writer or director uses a computer in real life, the machine is clearly built to detect it's being used by Hollywood personnel, so all login systems automatically switch from the normal "Username and Password don't match \ Incorrect login \ Password was incorrect" to a flashing red "ACCESS DENIED". Because presumably they actually see this flashing red "ACCESS DENIED" when they actually do use a computer in real life, because they couldn't really be THAT dumb when producing a film, right? At least that's the only explanation I can come up with for its appearance in otherwise "realistic" movies, at least aside from LSD...which really could explain all the rest of their delusions too...hmm...

Hollywood mental flakes spend decades inventing and reinforcing their own myopic stereotypes, such as "technical ability == dorks with no social skills", most likely because they feel threatened by people with at least half a function brain (which most of them clearly lack), and then the masses believe it, and it becomes *cough* "fact". That's all there is to it.

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 15:31:02 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> People are not looking for a general purpose language. They are looking for a solution to their particular problem area...
>
> Go
> Rust
> Swift
>
> All fairly specialized and gaining ground.

I wouldn't call Swift specialized, maybe only because it only runs on OS X, iOS and linux right now.  So Linus would predict that Go and Rust may do well now because they're specialized, but will be hit hard if their niche collapses and they don't become more general-purpose before then (which I don't think they can do).  You seem to think that's not a real concern, that the growth from specialization is worth it.  Let's see who's right. :)

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 15:34:47 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 06:53 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
>>
>> I know some will disagree with me, but I will say it anyway: IT
>> community, especially developers, are known for poor social skills...
>> People tend to forget that...
>
> There may be a certain *small* level of truth to that, but most of it is nothing more than decades of Hollywood's pejorative stereotyping. And people being naive enough to believe what they see in the fiction that was produced by people who have spent decades proving themselves to have zero comprehension of basic reality, let alone even a basic high-school level research ability.

That's how Hollywood works: they take a well-known trait or stereotype and build a caricature out of it, ie jocks are good-looking and dumb, the President is wise and composed, and so on.

> It's the standard old Hollywood complete and total disconnect with reality - hell, look how they portray Tourette's a having a relationship to swearing (which is just plain bizarre to anyone actually capable of spending a mere one minute on a basic web search), or how cracking security always involves playing a 3D puzzle game. And then there's the oddity that any time a writer or director uses a computer in real life, the machine is clearly built to detect it's being used by Hollywood personnel, so all login systems automatically switch from the normal "Username and Password don't match \ Incorrect login \ Password was incorrect" to a flashing red "ACCESS DENIED". Because presumably they actually see this flashing red "ACCESS DENIED" when they actually do use a computer in real life, because they couldn't really be THAT dumb when producing a film, right? At least that's the only explanation I can come up with for its appearance in otherwise "realistic" movies, at least aside from LSD...which really could explain all the rest of their delusions too...hmm...

A lot of that is about showing simply and visually, or with greater effect, what would be boring if shown realistically.  Many watching will not be able to read "Incorrect login," but they can figure out that flashing red is bad.  If that person with Tourette's were just twitching uncontrollably, it's not very entertaining, whereas it's funny if they unexpectedly swear like a sailor in front of some prude. :) Watching somebody cracking security or defusing a bomb realistically would be boring and confusing, if not for the 3D puzzles or flashing LED bomb clocks to watch and understand what's going on.

They're not that stupid, you know.  They're just trying to make as much money as they can, which means dumbing the material down for the lowest common denominator.

In fact, I find it astonishing how often they raise issues that later become big in real life.

> Hollywood mental flakes spend decades inventing and reinforcing their own myopic stereotypes, such as "technical ability == dorks with no social skills", most likely because they feel threatened by people with at least half a function brain (which most of them clearly lack), and then the masses believe it, and it becomes *cough* "fact". That's all there is to it.

There may be some truth to that, but more likely they're just pandering to the stereotypes of their audience, ie the salesman who snickers at the IT guy who can't get a date but is jealous that he makes more money.

I did think the recent movies The Social Network and Jobs, both written by the writer of The West Wing and The Newsroom, showed a concerted effort to cast those tech CEOs in a negative light.  Hollywood is likely mad that tech is encroaching on their domain, with youtube, iTunes, Netflix, etc.  There were supposedly characters in The Newsroom who railed against bloggers (never watched the show, heard it was bad), and the writer has done the same in real life.

What you say may be true in the last couple years, whereas before they likely didn't see tech as a threat.

On Thursday, 11 February 2016 at 16:39:14 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> I wouldn't call Swift specialized, maybe only because it only runs on OS X, iOS and linux right now.  So Linus would predict that Go and Rust may do well now because they're specialized, but will be hit hard if their niche collapses and they don't become more general-purpose before then (which I don't think they can do).  You seem to think that's not a real concern, that the growth from specialization is worth it.  Let's see who's right. :)

I don't think there is any such thing as general purpose programming languages. They all get sucked into a niche.

His article is way too long. It seems like an article about whining about how people whine too much.

On 02/11/2016 04:54 PM, w0rp wrote:
> His article is way too long. It seems like an article about whining
> about how people whine too much.

It's metawhine! :)

On Friday, 12 February 2016 at 03:19:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 04:54 PM, w0rp wrote:
>> His article is way too long. It seems like an article about whining
>> about how people whine too much.
>
> It's metawhine! :)

These meta whines get on my nerves, everything was much better in Usenet days.