On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 13:55:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 10/6/14, 6:18 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:

> We will accept multiple "alias this". -- Andrei

=============================================================
IgorStepanov  commented 6 days ago

Please, someone, add label "Needs Approval" to this PR. We need discuss a conflict resolving, and determine right algorithm, if implemented algorithm isn't right. Thanks.

yebblies added Enhancement Needs Approval labels 6 days ago
=============================================================

Please grand approval there.

On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 14:53:23 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 10/6/14, 7:05 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 13:49:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 10/6/14, 12:44 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 14:55:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>>

> To interpret my lack of time politically is really amusing. You guys have too much time on your hands :o).

At least give such an explanation from time to time. Silence is the worst.

On 10/6/14, 9:14 AM, eles wrote:
> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 13:55:05 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 10/6/14, 6:18 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> We will accept multiple "alias this". -- Andrei
>
> =============================================================
> IgorStepanov  commented 6 days ago
>
> Please, someone, add label "Needs Approval" to this PR. We need discuss
> a conflict resolving, and determine right algorithm, if implemented
> algorithm isn't right. Thanks.
> 
> yebblies added Enhancement Needs Approval labels 6 days ago
> =============================================================
>
> Please grand approval there.

Will do, thanks. -- Andrei

On 10/6/14, 9:16 AM, eles wrote:
> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 14:53:23 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 10/6/14, 7:05 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 13:49:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/14, 12:44 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 14:55:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>> To interpret my lack of time politically is really amusing. You guys
>> have too much time on your hands :o).
>
> At least give such an explanation from time to time. Silence is the worst.

Wait, are we too active in the forums or too silent? -- Andrei

Am 06.10.2014 10:12, schrieb eles:
> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 06:28:58 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 06:28:02 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 06:23:42 UTC, eles wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 03:48:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> On 10/5/14, 3:08 PM, eles wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 14:55:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>> I like the safety that a GC guarantees, but is a too big price to
>> be paid for that...
>
> Just look at this abomination from here:
>
> http://agilology.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-dispose-is-necessary-and-other.html
>
>
> sqlConnection.Close();
> sqlConnection.Dispose();
> sqlConnection = null;
>
> Is this your idea about releasing a resource? Why is this better than
> writing delete/dispose sqlConnection?
>
> If you ask to use structs for RAII, I am afraid that you will receive a
> DFront proposal.

This abomination tends to be written by developers that don't care to learn how to use properly their tools.

It is quite easy to just use "using" on every IDisposable resource.

As for setting something to null just to let the GC know about it, a sign of premature optimization and a sign of not neither knowing how a GC works nor how to use a memory profiler.

--
Paulo

On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 09:39:44AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 10/6/14, 9:16 AM, eles wrote:
> >On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 14:53:23 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>On 10/6/14, 7:05 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> >>>On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 13:49:15 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>>>On 10/6/14, 12:44 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> >>>>>On Sunday, 5 October 2014 at 14:55:38 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >
> >>To interpret my lack of time politically is really amusing. You guys have too much time on your hands :o).
> >
> >At least give such an explanation from time to time. Silence is the worst.
> 
> Wait, are we too active in the forums or too silent? -- Andrei

It would be *very* nice if once in a while (say once a week, or once a month) you and/or Walter can do a little write-up about the current status of things. Say a list of top 5 projects currently being worked on, a list of the top 5 current priorities, a short blurb about "progress this past week/month" (which could be as simple as "we've been swamped with fixing regressions, haven't been able to work on anything else", or "Facebook has me on a short leash, I haven't been able to work on D", etc.). This should be in its own thread, titled something like "Weekly [or monthly] status update", not buried underneath mountains of posts in one of our infamous interminable threads about some controversial topic, like to autodecode or not to autodecode.

Of course, who am I to tell you what to do... but IMO a periodical high-level status update like the above would go a *long* way in dispelling complaints of "lack of direction" or "unclear/unknown priorities". It doesn't have to be long, either. Even a 1 page (OK, OK, *half* a page), bullet-point post is good enough.


T

-- 
In theory, software is implemented according to the design that has been carefully worked out beforehand. In practice, design documents are written after the fact to describe the sorry mess that has gone on before.

On 10/6/14, 9:58 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> It would be*very*  nice if once in a while (say once a week, or once a
> month) you and/or Walter can do a little write-up about the current
> status of things. Say a list of top 5 projects currently being worked
> on, a list of the top 5 current priorities, a short blurb about
> "progress this past week/month" (which could be as simple as "we've been
> swamped with fixing regressions, haven't been able to work on anything
> else", or "Facebook has me on a short leash, I haven't been able to work
> on D", etc.). This should be in its own thread, titled something like
> "Weekly [or monthly] status update", not buried underneath mountains of
> posts in one of our infamous interminable threads about some
> controversial topic, like to autodecode or not to autodecode.
>
> Of course, who am I to tell you what to do... but IMO a periodical
> high-level status update like the above would go a*long*  way in
> dispelling complaints of "lack of direction" or "unclear/unknown
> priorities". It doesn't have to be long, either. Even a 1 page (OK, OK,
> *half*  a page), bullet-point post is good enough.

That's a really nice idea. -- Andrei

On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 15:05:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 10/6/14, 7:36 AM, Wyatt wrote:
>>
>> D is going to have C++ support.  That's cool and compelling as
>> a bare statement, but in what manner?
>
> We don't know yet, we're designing it

> The exact list is in the air. We're looking e.g. for the best policy on exceptions. Possible vs. impossible is btw a matter of scale, for example wrapping everything you need from C++ in C functions is possible in the small but impossible at scale.
>
Ah, I see what happened now!  The way you've been pushing it, I was given to believe you had something resembling a "grand vision" of how you wanted "C++ interoperability" to work with some proposed syntax and semantics.  If not something so grandiose, at least a pool of ideas written down?  Or even just a mental list of things you think are important to cover?  Regardless, these things ARE important to communicate clearly.

> This was discussed already: we should be able to pass an std::vector<int> by reference/pointer from C++ into D and use it within D directly, with no intervening marshaling.
>
Awesome, this is a start.

> It seems this is a simple misunderstanding. You're looking for a virtually finished product

It really is a misunderstanding.  Heck, I think it still is one because all we're really looking for is some inkling of what's on your agenda at a granularity finer than "C++ and GC".  If nothing else, a list like that gets people thinking about a feature ahead of the dedicated thread to discuss it.

-Wyatt

PS: Come to think of it, I may have been expecting a DIP?

On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 16:06:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I'm confused. Why would anyone who just comes to dlang.org see unformed ideas and incomplete designs? Wouldn't newcomers be more attracted by e.g. stuff coming in the next release?

Because he is interested in language development direction but does not want to actively participate? It can be someone with bad early D experience wondering if anything has changed in last year. Or it can be developer from some company using D wanting to get quick overview what to expect from the language for the next year or so.

For example I don't have time to follow Rust mail lists or GitHub commits but I do read blog posts of its developers regularly (including speculative ones) to see where it is heading. It is both interesting and educating and helps to spread the image among wider audience as well.

>> The fact that you don't seem to have a consensus with Walter on some
>> topic (auto-decoding, yeah) doesn't help either. Language marketing is
>> not about posting links on reddit, it is a very hard work of
>> communicating your vision so that it is clear even to random by-passer.
>
> I think one good thing we can do is approach things in private before discussing them publicly.

Agreed. I don't propose to stop paying attention to forums or drop all discussions but to put a bit more efforts into popularizing resulting decisions and plans. So that someone can safely ignore some of discussions without fearing that it will surprisingly appear in next release catching one off guard.

>>> We now have Martin Nowak as the point of contact.
>>
>> And what if he gets busy too? :)
>
> Maybe you'll volunteer.

I have already considered that and can be pretty sure this won't ever happen (at least not while this implies paying to Apple a single cent)

Let's get it straight - I don't care much about D success in general. It is a nice language to use here and there, I got an awesome job because of it but this is pretty much all the scope. There is no way I will ever work on something that is not needed to me only because it is important for language success in general.

This is pretty much the difference between language author / core developer and random contributor and why handling releases is safer in the hands of former.

> No doubt its design could be done better. But inout was not motivated theoretically. It came from the practical need of not duplicating code over qualifiers.

I don't mean feature itself was "theoretical". I mean that it was implemented and released before it got at least some practical usage in live projects with relevant feedback and thus have missed some corner cases.

> Sean proposed that. In fact that's a very good success story of sharing stuff for discussion sooner rather than later: he answered a Request For Comments with a great comment.

Well when I have initially asked the same question (why not user-controllable policies?) you straight out rejected it. I must be very bad at wording questions :(

> Again: I don't have a complete design, that's why I'm asking for comments in the Request For Comments threads. Would you rather have me come up alone with a complete design and then show it to the community as a fait accompli? What part of "let's do this together" I need to clarify?

"let's do this together" implies agreeing on some base to further work on. When I come and see that proposed solution does not address a problem I have at all I can't do anything but ask "how is this supposed to address my problem?" because that is _your_ proposal and I am not gifted with telepathy. Especially because you have stated that previous proposal (range-fication) which did fix the issue _for me_ is not on the table anymore.

>> You risk balkanization by keeping the things as they are. We do have
>> talks at work sometimes that simply forking the language may be a more
>> practical approach than pushing necessary breaking changes upstream by
>> the time D2 port is complete. Those are just talks of course and until
>> porting is done it is all just speculations but it does indicate certain
>> level of unhappinness.
>
> It would be terrific if Sociomantic would improve its communication with the community about their experience with D and their needs going forward.

How about someone starts paying attention to what Don posts? That could be an incredible start. I spend great deal of time both reading this NG (to be aware of what comes next) and writing (to express both personal and Sociomantic concerns) and have literally no idea what can be done to make communication more clear.

>> Have you ever considered starting a blog about your vision of D
>> development to communicate it better to wider audience? :)
>
> Yah, apparently there's no shortage of ideas of things I should work on. Perhaps I should do the same. Dicebot, I think you should work on making exceptions refcounted :o).

As soon as it becomes a priority issue for me or Sociomantic (likely latter as I don't do much private D stuff anymore).

However your attempt to be sarcastic here does indicate that you have totally missed the point I was stressing in original comment. Writing a blog post once in a few months is hardly an effort comparable to reimplementing exceptions management but is much more important long term because no one but you can do it.

In this sense, yes, it is much more pragmatical to wait for someone like me to work on reference counted exceptions and for you to focus on communication instead. Worst thing that can happen is that nothing gets done which is still better than something unexpected and disruptive getting done.

On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:13:41PM +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 16:06:04 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[...]
> >It would be terrific if Sociomantic would improve its communication with the community about their experience with D and their needs going forward.
> 
> How about someone starts paying attention to what Don posts? That could be an incredible start. I spend great deal of time both reading this NG (to be aware of what comes next) and writing (to express both personal and Sociomantic concerns) and have literally no idea what can be done to make communication more clear.

I don't remember who it was, but I'm pretty sure *somebody* at Sociomantic has stated clearly their request recently: Please break our code *now*, if it helps to fix language design issues, rather than later.

Or, if you'll allow me to paraphrase it, pay the one-time cost of broken code now, rather than incur the ongoing cost of needing to continually workaround language issues.


T

-- 
Too many people have open minds but closed eyes.