On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 23:36:29 +0000, deadalnix wrote:

> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 23:22:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:54:27 +0000, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>>
>>> I think a keyword is a keyword is a keyword. If it's a keyword to the right it should be one everywhere. How is somethign that's a built-in attribute one place and an identifier in another not context sensitive.
>>
>> yep. that is "slave to the machine" approach. i don't really care how hard machine should work to understand what i want. ;-)
>>
>> i.e. i can't see why i have to deal with problems of compiler/tool/editor author. it's easy -- at least in this case -- for human to see where keywords are keywords. machine can see that too with some analysis. yet somehow situation is horribly reversed: instead of machine helping me to do what i want, that's me who must obey the machine orders and do the work that machine can do for me.
> 
> That is a retarded mindset. It is not about how hard it is for the machine, but for tool writer.
> 
> I know many people look down on java, but quite frankly, the tooling is just way better than pretty much anything else. One could argue this is because of corporate support, but other languages like C++ also have important corporate support. And still, C++ tooling mostly suck. Honestly, pretty anything except C# tooling suck in comparison.
> 
> The problem of the tool writer is your problem, because any tool that isn't written is work you need to yourself. And then who's the slave to the machine ?

and there are at least 4 available codebases for writing tools. for C++ there is DMD frontend. for D there is dscanner, magicport and SDC. yet instead of thinking how all that code can help me and made my life better, i should think how making my life harder will help to write great tools somewhere in the future. that is what i call "retarded mindset".

On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 20:11:32 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:

> Now if you can get that list of high priority issues out so I can know what I should be working on that would be great!

It would be nice to know the priorities of the leadership, but, if you have the skills to hack the compiler, bugzilla is the place to start earning one's wings and influence. I would love it you could fix this (these) bugs.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13372
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12496

And I'm sure bug fixes are already pre-approved.

Mike

On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 23:22:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:54:27 +0000, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>
>> I think a keyword is a keyword is a keyword. If it's a keyword to the
>> right it should be one everywhere. How is somethign that's a built-in
>> attribute one place and an identifier in another not context sensitive.
>
> yep. that is "slave to the machine" approach. i don't really care how
> hard machine should work to understand what i want. ;-)

I take it you also don't care if your IDE lags for 5 seconds every time you type a character?

> i.e. i can't see why i have to deal with problems of compiler/tool/editor
> author. it's easy -- at least in this case -- for human to see where
> keywords are keywords. machine can see that too with some analysis.

I'm a tool writer. If I have enough problems, I don't build the tool. The problem is now your problem.

You know what else is easy for humans? Image and audio processing and knowing how to walk. Things that are easy for machines are hard for humans. Things that are easy for humans are hard for machines.

> yet somehow situation is horribly reversed: instead of machine helping me to
> do what i want, that's me who must obey the machine orders and do the
> work that machine can do for me.

If it really is work that the machine can do for you, why haven't you made the machine do it?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:03:51 +0000, Brian Schott wrote:

> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 23:22:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:54:27 +0000, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>>
>>> I think a keyword is a keyword is a keyword. If it's a keyword to the right it should be one everywhere. How is somethign that's a built-in attribute one place and an identifier in another not context sensitive.
>>
>> yep. that is "slave to the machine" approach. i don't really care how hard machine should work to understand what i want. ;-)
> 
> I take it you also don't care if your IDE lags for 5 seconds every time you type a character?

sure, i will not use such IDE, 'cause it's fubared. yet it has nothing with "great grammars": it's fubared 'cause the authors were thinking about "how we can write that cool IDE so everybody will prise us" instead of "how we can write our IDE that it will be fast and easy".

and generally speaking, IDEs sux.

>> i.e. i can't see why i have to deal with problems of compiler/tool/editor author. it's easy -- at least in this case -- for human to see where keywords are keywords. machine can see that too with some analysis.
> 
> I'm a tool writer. If I have enough problems, I don't build the tool. The problem is now your problem.

that's good. as we already have at least 4 codebases to build tools upon, and you gave up using that and insisting on writing another one, and failed... i doubt that your tool was really important or even usable. so now i don't have to try another tool just to throw it away.

> You know what else is easy for humans? Image and audio processing and knowing how to walk. Things that are easy for machines are hard for humans. Things that are easy for humans are hard for machines.

i wonder why we don't do all our programs in machine code today. 'cause, you know, it's hard for machine to parse all that languages. so let's use machine code!

>> yet somehow situation is horribly reversed: instead of machine helping me to do what i want, that's me who must obey the machine orders and do the work that machine can do for me.
> 
> If it really is work that the machine can do for you, why haven't you made the machine do it?

i did. i'm not using "vanilla" D, that was mentioned in this thread. and you know what? i didn't encounter *any* problems with it.

On 1/28/2015 3:14 PM, FG wrote:
> On 2015-01-28 at 23:27, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Good language design has redundancy in it. Often people see the redundancy,
>> and advocate removing it as noise. But the redundancy has a valuable purpose -
>> diagnosing of errors, and offering suggestions for fixing the errors. If there
>> was no redundancy in the language, every random sequence of bytes would be a
>> valid program.
>
> I'm quite sure I have read this very same thing not so long ago. :)

I repeat it regularly!

It's one of those things that one only learns the hard way, because the subtleties of it are not at all obvious. It's one of the mistakes that inexperienced language designers make again and again.

One of the other mistakes they make is the great idea of implicit declaration of variables, and then ruefully have to deprecate/remove it a year or two later. (How could those experienced designers have missed this obviously great feature?!?)

On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 00:14:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> that's good. as we already have at least 4 codebases to build tools upon,
> and you gave up using that and insisting on writing another one, and
> failed... i doubt that your tool was really important or even usable. so
> now i don't have to try another tool just to throw it away.

That's exactly right. I gave up on using dscanner and insisted on writing dscanner instead.

On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 00:14:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:03:51 +0000, Brian Schott wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 23:22:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:54:27 +0000, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think a keyword is a keyword is a keyword. If it's a keyword to the
>>>> right it should be one everywhere. How is somethign that's a built-in
>>>> attribute one place and an identifier in another not context
>>>> sensitive.
>>>
>>> yep. that is "slave to the machine" approach. i don't really care how
>>> hard machine should work to understand what i want. ;-)
>> 
>> I take it you also don't care if your IDE lags for 5 seconds every time
>> you type a character?
>
> sure, i will not use such IDE, 'cause it's fubared. yet it has nothing
> with "great grammars": it's fubared 'cause the authors were thinking
> about "how we can write that cool IDE so everybody will prise us" instead
> of "how we can write our IDE that it will be fast and easy".

why bother when vim exists : )

>>> i.e. i can't see why i have to deal with problems of
>>> compiler/tool/editor author. it's easy -- at least in this case -- for
>>> human to see where keywords are keywords. machine can see that too with
>>> some analysis.
>> 
>> I'm a tool writer. If I have enough problems, I don't build the tool.
>> The problem is now your problem.
>
> that's good. as we already have at least 4 codebases to build tools upon,
> and you gave up using that and insisting on writing another one, and
> failed... i doubt that your tool was really important or even usable. so
> now i don't have to try another tool just to throw it away.
>

Uncalled for IMO, Schott's tools are great.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:29:26 +0000, Brian Schott wrote:

> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 00:14:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> that's good. as we already have at least 4 codebases to build tools
>> upon,
>> and you gave up using that and insisting on writing another one, and
>> failed... i doubt that your tool was really important or even usable.
>> so now i don't have to try another tool just to throw it away.
> 
> That's exactly right. I gave up on using dscanner and insisted on writing dscanner instead.

sorry, it wasn't obvious that i was talking not about you in personal, as i read your text as a text about "jack the random, tool writer".

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:33:39 +0000, weaselcat wrote:

> Uncalled for IMO, Schott's tools are great.

sure. i wasn't talking about Brian in my text, that was my dumbiness that paints the text personal.

On 1/28/15 4:29 PM, Brian Schott wrote:
> I gave up on using dscanner and insisted on writing dscanner instead.

Nice. Interrogative - time to promote dscanner to tools/? Brian, what do you think? -- Andrei