On 1/26/15 5:45 PM, uri wrote:
> I get the impression it will never be finished because too many are
> afraid of important breaking changes that seem necessary to get through
> the last 5%-10% of D2.

Fiddling with "@" is not important. -- Andrei

On 1/26/15 7:25 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 02:40:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 1/26/2015 6:15 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>>> What's keeping you from committing to 'dfix' as the way to solve
>>> issues like the
>>> one in this thread?
>>
>> Inertia of people being reluctant to use it. It's still work for
>> people to use, it's not part of their build process.
>
> What about compiler integration? I'm talking about fundamental language
> changes. Why would people use it if it didn't have official backing and
> wasn't part of the compiler package? In this post:
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/uimpnhiweuitnnbeqshu@forum.dlang.org
>
> ... I said: 'For example, let's say dfix is included with the compiler
> package.
> Now you get an error, saying: "Error: `@nogc` is no longer
> accepted, but can be automatically replaced with `nogc`. Run dfix
> on this file? (y/n)"... or whatever is deemed the secure approach
> to this feature.'
>
> That's what I mean by "commiting to dfix."

I'm ready to commit to dfix. Problem is many of the changes suggested are unlikely to mark much improvement, while miring us in the perpetual illusion of making progress. The fact that we can avail ourselves of a tactical tool that makes changes easy is helpful but also opens opportunity of abuse.

Let's stop shuffling the deck. I mean it. Stop shuffling the freaking deck. Fix the real issues in the language. Add new libraries. Be original. Be creative. Do real work.


Thanks,

Andrei

On 1/26/2015 7:58 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/26/15 5:32 PM, Mike wrote:
>> The future benefits of fixing this kind of crap, are huge.
>
> IMHO this is myopic. We have much larger issues with e.g. safety, shared, and
> the core threading library, than syntactic minutia. All of this changing what
> works has its value, but that pales in comparison. Yes, a light bulb can be
> bright, but it pales when set against the sun. Context, perspective, vision -
> that's what matters now. -- Andrei
>

I agree. Let's not get mired in an "illusion of progress".

On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 04:10:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/26/15 7:25 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 02:40:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2015 6:15 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>>>> What's keeping you from committing to 'dfix' as the way to solve
>>>> issues like the
>>>> one in this thread?
>>>
>>> Inertia of people being reluctant to use it. It's still work for
>>> people to use, it's not part of their build process.
>>
>> What about compiler integration? I'm talking about fundamental language
>> changes. Why would people use it if it didn't have official backing and
>> wasn't part of the compiler package? In this post:
>>
>> http://forum.dlang.org/post/uimpnhiweuitnnbeqshu@forum.dlang.org
>>
>> ... I said: 'For example, let's say dfix is included with the compiler
>> package.
>> Now you get an error, saying: "Error: `@nogc` is no longer
>> accepted, but can be automatically replaced with `nogc`. Run dfix
>> on this file? (y/n)"... or whatever is deemed the secure approach
>> to this feature.'
>>
>> That's what I mean by "commiting to dfix."
>
> I'm ready to commit to dfix. Problem is many of the changes suggested are unlikely to mark much improvement, while miring us in the perpetual illusion of making progress. The fact that we can avail ourselves of a tactical tool that makes changes easy is helpful but also opens opportunity of abuse.
>
> Let's stop shuffling the deck. I mean it. Stop shuffling the freaking deck. Fix the real issues in the language. Add new libraries. Be original. Be creative. Do real work.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrei

Well said.

I've been wavering for a few months between D and Python for teams on smaller internal projects. IMO this is the right attitude from core D devs to finish off D2.

Cheers,
uri

On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 04:10:24 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I'm ready to commit to dfix. Problem is many of the changes suggested are unlikely to mark much improvement, while miring us in the perpetual illusion of making progress.

I don't think there's any illusion about D's great progress. D really has been making incredible progress. But also, don't you think it's progress to really solve issues, even little ones, such that threads like this never take place again? The way I see it, it's either dfix or the status quo for this issue. The current pull request is not decisive enough. So I talk about dfix, because it seems like the right tool for the job. Yes, it's tantalizing to imagine what other uses it has, but we won't know until it's in the tool belt and available to use. Maybe it'll have no other uses. Maybe all other potential uses will be "illusions of progress". But to me, it's attractive. It offers the best odds at really closing the case on a lot of nitpicks people have about D right now.

> The fact that we can avail ourselves of a tactical tool that makes changes easy is helpful but also opens opportunity of abuse.

What I hear you say is that you may not want the added responsibility of yours and Walter's making decisions on all the new possibilities it opens up. And maybe you're right about that. All I can do is make arguments, while you two have to decide Yes, or No. I want my arguments to help make your decisions easier. That's my goal. But I won't deny that (to use a tired cliche that actually makes sense here) with added power comes added responsibility.

> Let's stop shuffling the deck. I mean it. Stop shuffling the freaking deck. Fix the real issues in the language. Add new libraries. Be original. Be creative. Do real work.

How is the pull request which started this post not shuffling the deck? If it's not an issue, why make a pull request to begin with? Also, I hope it helps to realize that not everyone is qualified to give valuable feedback on some of the larger issues D faces. I definitely feel out of my league on many topics here, notwithstanding the crazy ideas that just pop into my head sometimes. :-/ But simply allowing people to chatter about the issues they do feel competent to discuss can have a very positive effect on the community. I don't think it stops you or anyone else from starting threads on the bigger animals in the arena. Not everyone's playing with the same set of marbles here. But I'll admit I don't know exactly how you feel. Just focus on what you care about and be honest about what you currently consider worthy and not worthy of your very valuable time. Destroy! :-)

On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 03:58:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/26/15 5:32 PM, Mike wrote:
>> The future benefits of fixing this kind of crap, are huge.
>
> IMHO this is myopic. We have much larger issues with e.g. safety, shared, and the core threading library, than syntactic minutia. All of this changing what works has its value, but that pales in comparison.

Agreed, but...

It is not the case that trivial matters like this are taking resources away from somewhere else.  Take away all the trivia, and the important stuff still wouldn't get done because each cat in this herd disagrees on where to go or how to get there.

IMO, none of these light bulbs are blocking the sun, and at least they are making some contribution to the ambient light.

Mike

On 1/26/15 10:32 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 03:58:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 1/26/15 5:32 PM, Mike wrote:
>>> The future benefits of fixing this kind of crap, are huge.
>>
>> IMHO this is myopic. We have much larger issues with e.g. safety,
>> shared, and the core threading library, than syntactic minutia. All of
>> this changing what works has its value, but that pales in comparison.
>
> Agreed, but...
>
> It is not the case that trivial matters like this are taking resources
> away from somewhere else.

I think they are.

No reply needed.


Andrei

On 2015-01-26 17:10, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> I agree with Jonathan's points, this solution doesn't seem like an
> improvement.   If I understand the problem, we don't want to make every
> attribute use the '@' symbol because it looks bad and would cause a lot
> of code changes for sake of consistency. However, on the other hand, we
> don't want to support the new properties because we have to add them as
> keywords which would break code using those words and would make the
> language more restrictive (nothing can be named nogc/safe/...).
>
> Assuming I understand the problem, couldn't we modify the language
> grammar to support more attributes without making them keywords?  Then
> we can omit the '@' on future code (and fix the old code if we want) and
> we don't have to litter the language with new keywords.
>
> I understand that doing this may be fairly complicated.  This may create
> some ambiguities in the grammar that would need to be handled carefully,
> but if it can work I think this would be a good option.

We could use compiler recognized UDA's. It's not complicated, at least no in the case I've implemented it.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 02:11:55 +0000, Jonathan Marler wrote:

> This has become quite frustrating.  I'm not sure how else to explain myself so maybe I'm just being dumb.
you are dumb. you can be dumb for some time, and then BANG! your proposal is silently made "right". yet you're still dumb. that is The Way Of D.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 17:56:00 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> On 1/26/2015 2:15 PM, Foo wrote:
>> Because you/we are community members and therefore "second-class citizens". If we suggest or discuss something, it is not that important. But if a small reddit post is made, it matters more.
> 
> Major contributors to D, like Don Clugston, advocated for it.
> 
> It comes up repeatedly.

and repeatedly rejected. and then... wow! silently accepted. without discussion. D is not a community project. D is Walter Bright toy project.