On 24 September 2013 22:23, David Nadlinger <code@klickverbot.at> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 September 2013 at 20:26:54 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> On 9/23/2013 10:33 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
>>> GCC has a carat too now.
>>
>>
>> DMC has had a carat for 30 years now.
>>
>>   int x x;
>>         ^
>>   test2.c(2) : Error: missing ',' between declaration of 'x' and 'x'
>>
>> Nobody ever gave a damn about that feature, i.e. not one single person commented on it, including not a single D user.
>
>
> Maybe that's because "not one single person" actually uses DMC? ;)
>

That's a bit below the belt for you David.  ;-)

Saying that, I don't use dmc...


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 07:39:32 UTC, eles wrote:
>> DMC? A compiler which produces obsolete object format which is not produced by anyone else and which is a reason of why dmd users experience problems in windows platform?
>
> All that might be true, however I feel like is not fair to criticize DMC in such harsh words.
>
> First, because one should judge a compiler wrt its pairs (of the same age).

I am not judging DMC compiler. I am essentially judging the author who decided not to invest time and sources into supporting proper object format for dmd on win32.

>
> Second, because I think it was quite a breakthrough at its time, and history should be respected, even if becomes obsolete (what does not?). One should not criticize IBM PC for being obsolete *today*.
>

Where and which history did I disrespected?

> Third, because it is real (and hard) work behind that DMC compiler and it is available for free. Maybe not the latest, nor the greatest, but is a contribution to the software world and this should be appreciated. Besides, all work should be respected and appreciated. It is hard to work, and it is even harder to work hard.

Who says that writing a compiler is a picnic? By the way, if you decided to raise the issue, I can say that someone doesn't need to move stuff from one backend file to another without obvious end-user value when there are outcrying problems with D implementation.

>
> Fourth, because it attracted C/C++ fans to D. It is my case: I crawled the Internet back then in the search for a free C/C++ compiler, being a bit disappointed by Borland's (I think 5.5 was "freed") suite, specifically... its error messages. I gave DMC a try, then got caught into the D thing...

Did DMC attracted you to D? That's fine but I doubt it attracted at least 4 more persons. In my opinion most were attracted by completely different reasons.

>
> Fifth, because as obsolete as DMC might be, it provided Walter a lot of experience and this lead him to D in the first place. Yes, me too I would prefer main focus to shift on GDC or LDC but, at the end of the day, I must acknowledge the fact that if DMC and Walter did not exist, with all shortcomings of DMC, we'd have today no GDC, nor LDC to complain about those not being given priority.

What does this have to do with object format?

>
> Sixth, because from time to time we should express not only harsh truths, but kindness. Kindness, too, is true. We are eager to be harsh with others, but still we hope others to be kind with us.

What does this have to do with object format?

On 2013-09-24 22:26, Walter Bright wrote:

> DMC has had a carat for 30 years now.
>
>    int x x;
>          ^
>    test2.c(2) : Error: missing ',' between declaration of 'x' and 'x'
>
> Nobody ever gave a damn about that feature, i.e. not one single person
> commented on it, including not a single D user.

Honestly, I don't care if DMC does it or not. I want DMD to do it.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-09-25 06:33, Walter Bright wrote:

> Except that no other compiler at the time did the caret thing. It was a
> unique feature of DMC.
>
> DMC (or Zortech C++, back in the 80's), was the feature rich compiler of
> its day.

Perhaps people didn't care about it back then. But oblivious people care now. You said "I'd have a different attitude about it if just one person had ever said "cool" when I showed them that feature". People _are_ asking for it now.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 09/25/2013 01:17 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/24/2013 2:56 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> It seems nobody comments on almost anything DMC-related anyway. Isn't
>> this the DMC newsgroup: http://forum.dlang.org/group/c++ ? If it is,
>> there's hardly a single post per month..
>
> You overlook that it's a very old compiler - 30 years. In its day it had
> maybe 100,000 users.
>
> People do still use it today, to compile dmd for Win32 for example, and
> nobody has yet
>
>       EVER
>
> commented on that feature, unless I prompted them, when
>
> I have pointed it out many times over the decades, and the response is
> always:
>
>      SO WHAT
>
>      WHO CARES
>
> etc. So please forgive my grumpiness about if clang implements it,
> suddenly it's the greatest, most useful feature ever.
>

30 years (pitifully) seems to be a plausible time frame for an idea of merit to become fashionable.

On 9/25/13, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
> People are asking for it now.

Yeah but it's not anonymous people on Reddit asking for it, it's just experienced D developers. It doesn't count.

On 09/25/2013 01:55 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/24/2013 4:43 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> You may underestimate power of marketing in IT world :)
>
> i.e. compiler fashion!
>
>> It does not matter how
>> useful feature was on its own - clang guys has convinced the crowd it
>> is useful
>> so now it is useful. Its actual merit is irrelevant unless you want to
>> invest
>> into "counter-propaganda".
>
> Probably the most insightful comment in this thread.

It should be noted however, that it is completely vacuous in a context where the goal is to infer something about the actual merit.

On Sep 25, 2013 11:16 AM, "Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/25/13, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
> > People are asking for it now.
>
> Yeah but it's not anonymous people on Reddit asking for it, it's just experienced D developers. It doesn't count.

Manu is not asking for it either.  :o)

*hugs Manu*

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

21.09.2013 21:41, Zhouxuan пишет:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11086
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11010
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10970
>
> I've found and reported these bugs after about merely 100 LOCs written
> down.
> Should I continue?
>
> Despite these tiny issues, I see a lot of people complain about
> container, GC etc, but I can't found any offical reply, also no roadmap
> at all.

A year or two ago it was a lot of wrong-code bugs with lambdas and nested functions making e.g. `std.algorithm` almost unusable. But it's only the beginning. OPTLINK bug causing random linking failures thus making the whole language unusable for real projects was fixed only about half a year ago.

And all this time I liked D except "the language is stable" words. And when half a year ago D become fully usable I become happy. For me "enough stability" is an ability to grab my copy of tool-chain and work with it without random failures.

Since then I had not any real problems with breaking changes or regressions. Generally regressions are fixed quickly and as for me the more breaking changes the better language we get. )

-- 
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij

On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 at 03:10:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> And, dmd users are often dmc users.

Are they, still?  I can't speak for everyone, but I know I've never used it.  I wish I had had it for precisely the feature in question when I was first learning C, even though it would have spoiled me on other compilers until...2013, apparently. :/

> Since dmd never had it, and dmc did, wouldn't anyone have suggested "hey, I like this dmc feature, why not put it in dmd?" But nope.

In the few compilers I've used that had it, I've never begrudged its existence; it's usually been helpful, and never harmful.  You could say I like it because it offers proper visualisation of the data.  I didn't realise it was moving from "rare, nice perk" to "in-demand standard feature" until this thread.

-Wyatt