As I said earlier, I'm done with this debate.

There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant statements like, "Binary blobs are the exception rather than the rule in Linux, and many hardware vendors would flat out say 'no' to doing any support on them."  This assertion is so ignorant of the facts, it's laughable. :) I have no idea what to make of Iain's talking about gdc or that it is a "one-man team" in response to my prediction that ldc could go closed/paid and obsolete dmd: there is absolutely no connection between the topics.

As for Luca's long response, it is filled with basic mistakes, silly and incorrect rehashes of material already covered, or trivial twits, like the fact that D has a spec but isn't standardized by any international body.  For example, I originally pointed out several examples of other projects with existing commercial models and I was told that they're not "closed."  I responded that I never said that they were all closed, only commercial, and I'm now told that since my proposed model for D is closed, I'm "misstating" myself. (Slaps head)

These responses seem written by people who have a very tenuous grasp on the text I wrote.

Look, I get it, you guys are religious zealots- you tip your hand when you allude to ethical or moral reasons for using open source, a crazy idea if there ever was one- and you will come up with all kinds of silly arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence that _pure_ open source has failed.  Instead, you claim success when hybrid models bring more open source into the world, then nonsensically reverse course and claim that either they aren't actually hybrid or that such hybrid models are not really "open source," that it's a lie to call it that. (Slaps head again)

I'm not trying to convince you zealots.  You want to keep banging your heads against the wall for the greater glory of your religion, have fun with that.

I'm simply putting forward a case for D going the route of the most successful projects these days, by using a hybrid model, with a unique variation that I came up with :) and have successfully used for a project of my own.

Those who aren't religious about _pure_ open source can consider what I've proposed and my evidence and see if it makes sense to them.

On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:18:01 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> As I said earlier, I'm done with this debate.
>
> There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant statements like, "Binary blobs are the exception rather than the rule in Linux, and many hardware vendors would flat out say 'no' to doing any support on them."  This assertion is so ignorant of the facts, it's laughable. :) I have no idea what to make of Iain's talking about gdc or that it is a "one-man team" in response to my prediction that ldc could go closed/paid and obsolete dmd: there is absolutely no connection between the topics.
>
> As for Luca's long response, it is filled with basic mistakes, silly and incorrect rehashes of material already covered, or trivial twits, like the fact that D has a spec but isn't standardized by any international body.  For example, I originally pointed out several examples of other projects with existing commercial models and I was told that they're not "closed."  I responded that I never said that they were all closed, only commercial, and I'm now told that since my proposed model for D is closed, I'm "misstating" myself. (Slaps head)
>
> These responses seem written by people who have a very tenuous grasp on the text I wrote.
>
> Look, I get it, you guys are religious zealots- you tip your hand when you allude to ethical or moral reasons for using open source, a crazy idea if there ever was one- and you will come up with all kinds of silly arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence that _pure_ open source has failed.  Instead, you claim success when hybrid models bring more open source into the world, then nonsensically reverse course and claim that either they aren't actually hybrid or that such hybrid models are not really "open source," that it's a lie to call it that. (Slaps head again)
>
> I'm not trying to convince you zealots.  You want to keep banging your heads against the wall for the greater glory of your religion, have fun with that.
>
> I'm simply putting forward a case for D going the route of the most successful projects these days, by using a hybrid model, with a unique variation that I came up with :) and have successfully used for a project of my own.
>
> Those who aren't religious about _pure_ open source can consider what I've proposed and my evidence and see if it makes sense to them.

Most replies to you have been quite measured and reasonable. I'm not sure what justifies you calling people zealots.

On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:18:01 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant statements

Yeah, I keep wondering why someone even bothered to waste time explaining all this to someone who is incapable of both providing own reasoning and studying opponent one.

I hope that anyone that has followed D history is perfectly aware of numbers that prove how beneficial transition to a community-based open development was.

On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:25:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:18:01 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> Look, I get it, you guys are religious zealots- you tip your hand when you allude to ethical or moral reasons for using open source, a crazy idea if there ever was one- and you will come up with all kinds of silly arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence that _pure_ open source has failed.
>
> Most replies to you have been quite measured and reasonable. I'm not sure what justifies you calling people zealots.
Read the rest of the sentence which you quoted, my reasons are stated.  When I come across so many arguments that are _factually_ wrong- "the Artistic license doesn't allow closing source," "most linux installs don't use binary blobs"- I know I'm dealing with religious zealots.

On 27 June 2013 14:40, Joakim <joakim@airpost.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:25:06 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 13:18:01 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>>
>>> Look, I get it, you guys are religious zealots- you tip your hand when you allude to ethical or moral reasons for using open source, a crazy idea if there ever was one- and you will come up with all kinds of silly arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence that _pure_ open source has failed.
>>
>>
>> Most replies to you have been quite measured and reasonable. I'm not sure what justifies you calling people zealots.
>
> Read the rest of the sentence which you quoted, my reasons are stated.  When I come across so many arguments that are _factually_ wrong- "the Artistic license doesn't allow closing source," "most linux installs don't use binary blobs"- I know I'm dealing with religious zealots.

Which is quite amusing, as those quotes aren't found anywhere in this thread. :o)

--
Iain Buclaw

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

Joakim, el 27 de June a las 15:17 me escribiste:
> As I said earlier, I'm done with this debate.
> 
> There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant statements like, "Binary blobs are the exception rather than the rule in Linux, and many hardware vendors would flat out say 'no' to doing any support on them."  This assertion is so ignorant of the facts, it's laughable. :) I have no idea what to make of Iain's talking about gdc or that it is a "one-man team" in response to my prediction that ldc could go closed/paid and obsolete dmd: there is absolutely no connection between the topics.
> 
> As for Luca's long response, it is filled with basic mistakes, silly and incorrect rehashes of material already covered, or trivial

How convenient is to put a lot of adjectives together and not a single fact to say someone is wrong. Almost as convenient as calling people religious zaelots when you run out of arguments. :)

And is so funny that you keep talking about the D contributors not participating in the thread when evidently you don't know who the contributors are.

I'm just so glad that you are done with this debate... My eyes were hurting from reading so much crap.

Bye, bye! Have fun with Visual C++!

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know the originally a Danish guy invented the burglar-alarm unfortunately, it got stolen

On 27 June 2013 14:17, Joakim <joakim@airpost.net> wrote:
> As I said earlier, I'm done with this debate.
>
> There is no point talking to people who make blatantly ignorant statements like, "Binary blobs are the exception rather than the rule in Linux, and many hardware vendors would flat out say 'no' to doing any support on them." This assertion is so ignorant of the facts, it's laughable. :)

Fact: That quote you find laughable isn't my opinion.  It was what Linus said during a Q&A after one of his talks (at least, if I remember it correctly ;).


> I have no idea what to make of Iain's talking about gdc or that it is a "one-man team"
> in response to my prediction that ldc could go closed/paid and obsolete dmd:
> there is absolutely no connection between the topics.
>

I suppose that was my ignorance there, I assumed that you at least *knew* a little bit of history behind the development of D1/D2.  I'm sure people would raise their eyebrows and sigh to have the age old question "why don't we just drop development of DMD and move it to X?" asked again.  :o)


--
Iain Buclaw

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

>-You could start taking donations and hire some people to work on
D.

This doesn't work as it's a volunteer project. Why should someone get paid when others give their time for free? It would create conflict while being a less effective application of funds, D already gets more than one or two people years of effort per year. A better use of the money is another D conference which has been a huge success and generated both ideas and much greater interest and exposure for D.

On 6/27/13, ixid <nuaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
>>-You could start taking donations and hire some people to work on
> A better use of the money is another D conference which has been a huge success and generated both ideas and much greater interest and exposure for D.

Yes, and some better glue for the microphones. :P

On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 21:39:28 UTC, ixid wrote:
>>-You could start taking donations and hire some people to work on
> D.
>
> This doesn't work as it's a volunteer project. Why should someone get paid when others give their time for free? It would create conflict while being a less effective application of funds, D already gets more than one or two people years of effort per year. A better use of the money is another D conference which has been a huge success and generated both ideas and much greater interest and exposure for D.

I don't think paying people should be out of the question, if there was money available.


There are often jobs that need doing on a project the size of D that aren't fun, stimlating or interesting, but are still absolutely necessary. Trawling through documentation for any errors/omissions etc. comes to mind.

These tasks could be split up in to manageable chunks and offered as freelance contracts for a modest but reasonable wage, dependant on urgency, technical skill needed etc.
E.g. If someone would pay me even as little as $15-20 an hour to go through phobos enforcing the style guide everywhere or chasing up old bugs in bugzilla, I would happily put in a few hours a week. For a student that sort of money goes a long way.
(Not suggesting that paying per hour is a good idea necessarily, just illustrating the point with an example)