On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 01:29:02 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> Does anyone know of any mechanism for getting people to do what needs to be done vs what they want to do that doesn't
> involve paying them?  The only long term successes I can point to all involve companies.

You cannot achieve this without actually employing people. People on their free time ill work on whatever they want, and hopefully !

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:18:11 -0800
Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 1/7/2013 3:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
> > "deadalnix" <deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> However, it is just to discover that this do not work :
> >>
> >> struct Bar {}
> >> auto foo(ref Bar bar) {}
> >>
> >> foo(Bar()); // Now this is an error !
> >>
> >> I still have code broken all over the place.
> >
> > IIRC, they tried to include this change in 2.060 (or was it 2.059?), but due to the major problems it causes, and the fact that it *does* make sense to use a temporary as an lvalue if you don't intend to use it again afterwords, there was a big discussion about it on the beta list and it was ultimately nixed. I'm disappointed to see that it snuck back.
> >
> 
> Well, fixing the rvalue ref problem is still on the front burner.

Wait, so are you saying that the above code which stopped working in 2.061 will start working again in a later version?

On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 05:29:15 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 17:18:11 -0800
> Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2013 3:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:08:58 +0100
>> > "deadalnix" <deadalnix@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> However, it is just to discover that this do not work :
>> >>
>> >> struct Bar {}
>> >> auto foo(ref Bar bar) {}
>> >>
>> >> foo(Bar()); // Now this is an error !
>> >>
>> >> I still have code broken all over the place.
>> >
>> > IIRC, they tried to include this change in 2.060 (or was it 2.059?),
>> > but due to the major problems it causes, and the fact that it *does*
>> > make sense to use a temporary as an lvalue if you don't intend to
>> > use it again afterwords, there was a big discussion about it on the
>> > beta list and it was ultimately nixed. I'm disappointed to see that
>> > it snuck back.
>> >
>> 
>> Well, fixing the rvalue ref problem is still on the front burner.
>
> Wait, so are you saying that the above code which stopped working in
> 2.061 will start working again in a later version?

No, I think he meant that breaking that code was actually fixing the language because it shouldn't have worked in a first place (thing I disagree with but I understand the reasoning).

On 2013-01-07 21:17, Russel Winder wrote:

> As far as I am aware white MacBooks cannot run 10.7 and 10.8, but are
> stuck at 10.6

I'm running 10.7 on my white MacBook from 2006.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-01-07 21:30, David Nadlinger wrote:

> I don't know the current relative market share of the different OS X
> versions on top of my head either, but as we were getting a couple of
> bug reports from people who had tried to use LDC 2 on 10.6 (before we
> figured out that LLVM doesn't emulate TLS there), I guess it's too soon
> to drop support for it still. However, when finally somebody finds the
> time to implement shared library support in the runtime, the situation
> might have already changed anyway.

In general Apple tries to push you to have always have the latest software. There are very few reasons to not have the latest OS, they are pretty darn cheap.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 07:30:55 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-01-07 21:30, David Nadlinger wrote:
>
>> I don't know the current relative market share of the different OS X
>> versions on top of my head either, but as we were getting a couple of
>> bug reports from people who had tried to use LDC 2 on 10.6 (before we
>> figured out that LLVM doesn't emulate TLS there), I guess it's too soon
>> to drop support for it still. However, when finally somebody finds the
>> time to implement shared library support in the runtime, the situation
>> might have already changed anyway.
>
> In general Apple tries to push you to have always have the latest software. There are very few reasons to not have the latest OS, they are pretty darn cheap.

Mandatory : http://www.gizmodo.fr/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/update_for_your_computer.jpg

On 1/7/2013 8:17 PM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
> And now I understand that D1 is no longer officially supported. If I understand
> properly D1 first release was 6 years ago.  Lets assume I would have started a
> product development with it say 2 years ago because it was deemed relatively
> stable then.  And now I want to support 64-bit Windows and my customers are
> starting to ask for Windows-8 support.  Or some other things gets in the way (a
> bug somewhere, Windows 9 getting released sooner because Windows 8 is not as
> popular as Microsoft would have hoped.) What would be my alternatives? Port all
> the code to D2?  Is this what will happen to D2? I'd like to know before I
> commit people and convince others.

The moment D1 was stabilized, work began on D2. It was always understood that D2 was the future, and D1 was the stable version. Supporting it for 6 years is a pretty long time in the software business.

At some point, you'll need to make a decision:

1. move to D2

2. merge things from D2 into the D1 you've forked

3. buy a support contract from Digital Mars or from any of the many other competent people in the community to help you with D1

It's pretty much the same with any software product. We were just talking about how Apple pretty much has deprecated OS X 10.6, Microsoft regularly abandons old versions of its operating systems, and I just found out that my Ubuntu is no longer supported.

On 2013-01-08 09:57, Walter Bright wrote:

> The moment D1 was stabilized, work began on D2. It was always understood
> that D2 was the future, and D1 was the stable version. Supporting it for
> 6 years is a pretty long time in the software business.
>
> At some point, you'll need to make a decision:
>
> 1. move to D2
>
> 2. merge things from D2 into the D1 you've forked
>
> 3. buy a support contract from Digital Mars or from any of the many
> other competent people in the community to help you with D1

4. There's also Amber now which seems to be basically the same as D1

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/zflwhizhppbdqfioznjv@forum.dlang.org

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 08:27 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

> I'm running 10.7 on my white MacBook from 2006.

Interesting, I was told not to try upgrading to Lion, but to stay with Snow Leopard.

MacBook2.1, Core 2 Duo, 2GB.

This has a 64-bit processor, but 32-bit boot PROM, which means OS X will only run in 32-bit mode. This causes great pain since OS and processor report different states of being, leading to real pain  building stuff.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On 13-01-08 3:57 AM, Walter Bright wrote:

> 3. buy a support contract from Digital Mars or from any of the many
> other competent people in the community to help you with D1
>

Good point.  Probably the most important.


-- 
/Pierre Rouleau