On 08/25/2012 03:36 AM, Pragma Tix wrote:
> ...
> I think this is an constructive blog, in case that somebody is
> willing to listen.
>

I really don't get what this is about. Are you actually suggesting
things are as they are because some clueless developers are unaware of
the issues?

On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 16:23:22 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 08/25/2012 03:36 AM, Pragma Tix wrote:
>> ...
>> I think this is an constructive blog, in case that somebody is
>> willing to listen.
>>
>
> I really don't get what this is about. Are you actually suggesting
> things are as they are because some clueless developers are unaware of
> the issues?

Not to speak for "Pragma Tix", but I don't think he is suggesting that. The blog post is simply another data point to gauge perception of D outside this newsgroup.

> His post comes down to: "I like to have an IDE and I prefer Java
> because I already know Java."

Just for the record, I am no particular fan of the Java language - it's weak, boring, and often tedious. Any "loyalty" to Java that I have is not because I already know it, but because it is a robust, stable, performant platform with a rich ecosystem of libraries and tools. I am very open to new languages. I learnt Java from scratch several years ago for a specific project. Other than that I have primarily used C++. I am always looking at language alternatives like Scala, Clojure, Erlang, and D.

You're right that I like to have an IDE. But I think that applies to a large percentage of programmers.

I fully admit to being a newbie at D and because of that I may be making incorrect judgements. However, keep in mind that every newcomer to D will be in the same position. If a language scares away newcomers, then it will have trouble gaining traction.

> This is perfectly fine of course, but why would this be relevant for D development?

One relevance to D development may be that there are a lot of Java developers out there who are a potential source of converts. Right or wrong, they are going to make many of the same  comparisons as me.

All the things I mention can (and I'm sure will) be improved - the garbage collector, the libraries, the tools, etc.

Just to be clear, I would love to see D be successful.

On 8/25/2012 6:03 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
> Okay, so bitfields are rarely used, but many templates involve some use of CTFE,
> and templates are very common in D code. It's good that D's parser is fairly
> simple to implement (compared to C++ anyway), but to do automated refactoring
> you need simple semantic analysis, and this is something that D does not have.

How many IDEs can handle the C preprocessor, with token pasting and all, when refactoring?

On 08/25/2012 12:23 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 08/25/2012 03:36 AM, Pragma Tix wrote:
>
> I really don't get what this is about. Are you actually suggesting
> things are as they are because some clueless developers are unaware of
> the issues?

Judging by your first reaction, that is a possibility, where you completely ignored important issues like garbage collection and the pain surrounding immutable.

As for the IDE, he mentioned Scala, and there the developers made an effort to support the IDE in the compiler so that work wouldn't be duplicated and the IDE would support the latest language release. They also had funding and hired somebody to work on the Eclipse plugin full time.

On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 19:39:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/25/2012 6:03 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
>> Okay, so bitfields are rarely used, but many templates involve some use of CTFE,
>> and templates are very common in D code. It's good that D's parser is fairly
>> simple to implement (compared to C++ anyway), but to do automated refactoring
>> you need simple semantic analysis, and this is something that D does not have.
>
> How many IDEs can handle the C preprocessor, with token pasting and all, when refactoring?

Straw man - I didn't suggest that the C preprocessor was any better. C++ is similarly criticised for its poor IDE support (when compared with C# and Java) due to the pre-processor and templates. If you haven't seen the level of support that (for example) Visual Studio provides for C# then I recommend checking it out. I imagine the situation with Java and Eclipse is similar, but I don't have any experience there.

On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 00:20:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 08/25/2012 01:58 AM, Pragma Tix wrote:
>> ----was Andrew McKinlay is trying D for Suneido.
>>
>> http://thesoftwarelife.blogspot.fr/2012/08/d-etractions.html
>>
>> You do not necessarily have to agree with Andrew, but this is a
>> pragmatic developer's view.  Let me say that Andrew has created his own
>> database system (Relational Algebra based) , his own language (Ruby
>> like)  and his own application frame work. Finally he is using his Tools
>> to create real world software.. i.e. Trucking/Transport / Accounting etc.
>>
>> IMO a voice, D core developers should listen to.
>>
>> Bjoern
>
> His post comes down to: "I like to have an IDE and I prefer Java
> because I already know Java."
> This is perfectly fine of course, but why would this be relevant for D
> development?

No, he points out that 1) templates inherently complexify code 2) make refactoring difficult, especially automated refactoring, something that is supported by major modern IDEs and not by text editors like vim/emacs, because the former have some knowledge of the AST, not the latter.
I know the first point is debatable; maybe there is less need for refactoring as the language is more expressive, but when refactoring is needed, it's probably much more difficult than in Java/C#, especially without the help of tools.

On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 20:06:59 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 19:39:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 8/25/2012 6:03 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
>>> Okay, so bitfields are rarely used, but many templates involve some use of CTFE,
>>> and templates are very common in D code. It's good that D's parser is fairly
>>> simple to implement (compared to C++ anyway), but to do automated refactoring
>>> you need simple semantic analysis, and this is something that D does not have.
>>
>> How many IDEs can handle the C preprocessor, with token pasting and all, when refactoring?
>
> Straw man - I didn't suggest that the C preprocessor was any better. C++ is similarly criticised for its poor IDE support (when compared with C# and Java) due to the pre-processor and templates. If you haven't seen the level of support that (for example) Visual Studio provides for C# then I recommend checking it out. I imagine the situation with Java and Eclipse is similar, but I don't have any experience there.

For the record, here is what IntelliJ IDEA (a now free IDE) offers:
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/features/refactoring.html

On 8/25/2012 1:06 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 19:39:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 8/25/2012 6:03 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
>>> Okay, so bitfields are rarely used, but many templates involve some use of CTFE,
>>> and templates are very common in D code. It's good that D's parser is fairly
>>> simple to implement (compared to C++ anyway), but to do automated refactoring
>>> you need simple semantic analysis, and this is something that D does not have.
>>
>> How many IDEs can handle the C preprocessor, with token pasting and all, when
>> refactoring?
>
> Straw man - I didn't suggest that the C preprocessor was any better. C++ is
> similarly criticised for its poor IDE support (when compared with C# and Java)
> due to the pre-processor and templates. If you haven't seen the level of support
> that (for example) Visual Studio provides for C# then I recommend checking it
> out. I imagine the situation with Java and Eclipse is similar, but I don't have
> any experience there.


I don't agree it's a straw man - it's the point. A perfect job is not necessary in order for people to find automated refactoring useful.

Am 25.08.2012 16:43, schrieb Niklas:
> On Friday, 24 August 2012 at 23:58:19 UTC, Pragma Tix wrote:
>> ----was Andrew McKinlay is trying D for Suneido.
>>
>> http://thesoftwarelife.blogspot.fr/2012/08/d-etractions.html
>>
>> You do not necessarily have to agree with Andrew, but this is a
>> pragmatic developer's view. Let me say that Andrew has created his own
>> database system (Relational Algebra based) , his own language (Ruby
>> like) and his own application frame work. Finally he is using his
>> Tools to create real world software.. i.e. Trucking/Transport /
>> Accounting etc.
>>
>> IMO a voice, D core developers should listen to.
>>
>> Bjoern
>
> I would say that a modern IDE is what most of todays developers use
> today. The D community misses out on a HUGE audience here. It's already
> hard to convince a programmer to try out something new. Starting up a D
> project isn't something that is done in a day by a person who is pretty
> new to programming.
>
> Best regards,
> Niklas
>
>


Quite true.

I was used to IDEs from the MS-DOS, early Windows days.

In the university I discovered Emacs and VI, and joined Emacs side for many years.

Until I joined the world of enterprise development, where the IDEs usually rule.

The amount of tooling Emacs, Netbeans, InteliJ, Visual Studio offer for code navigation, refactoring, code analysis, visual debugging and integration beats what Emacs and VI are able to offer. Even with tons of customization, it is not the same thing.

With background static analysis I can even forget my strong typing (Pascal family) bias against C and C++.

Emacs used to be considered as bloated as we consider IDEs nowadays. :)

--
Paulo