On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:32:11 +0000
Vic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> Hence a prediction: major things will be moved out of core to 3rd party plugins to slim down the lang, because now it's more than a lang: it is a platform.

D is not a platform. besides, GC is a core feature of D.

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 04:06:33 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:32:11 +0000
> Vic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> Hence a prediction: major things will be moved out of core to 3rd party plugins to slim down the lang, because now it's more than a lang: it is a platform.
>
> D is not a platform. besides, GC is a core feature of D.

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_%28software_platform%29
Java is a platform as per wikipedia. D, I'll argue has more features.
Hence: D *IS* a platform. It is obese. Instead of 'what if academics didn't write a language, but a compiler writer writes a language, the new culture is: academics are writing a sugary platform. (and do they use it on projects, a big part of open source is that you use what you write, at their day job their team use something else).

D 'has' a 'GC' for certain 'values' of working.  Data point:
My company has 6 *full* time Sr Developers (15 years +) in Silicon Valley - one of the larger commercial D users(sad) - so I say that we use D (and only D) and for heavy lifting month in and month out. So when all 6 tell me GC does not work .... (for example allocate a large associative array and run a few threads - I may present this example at the 'D meetup silicon valley' in Jan meetup and publish example in git). So I tell you, when I see focus of the volunteer maintainers on 'what can I add' and not on 'what can I remove' it scares me to the bone as the CTO. Difference w/ Linus and Walter? Both are smart, Walter is a nice guy, and not a bastard.

So if maintainers decide that one of the thing to move is GC, one way,not the only way, is IOC | DI pattern (you can look up DI and IOC), it's doable, but it is like watching a fat person run 10 yards, they would rather eat a donut).
Leave the method(init, destroy) hooks and ref counting in core. People(p/t users of D) than inject the default GC(amateurs by definition as they don't get paid to D). So it would be just like now.

Professional teams/commercial users write a GC that fits that situation, possibly create a D utils open source project - and now you have an eco system of downstream open source projects and commercial users doing heavy lifting in D and 3rd: the corner case of people that use D just a little a few hours a week for a few weeks in a year.

But, I don't know I'm saying move GC, I'm saying move somethings. Exceptions like GO, the 12 generics features are sugary, etc. just open up Andreii's book and go to town. If it's not GC, remove something else to the point it is maintainable and commercial users can lean on a working D. I am saying lots of things should be moved, ex: split the compiler into core and pre-compiler for the academic but still needed plugins.
Also, people, I' am a user, so I'm just wagging the tail. Listen to the maintainers as to the future direction, I focus on bigger or smaller as the leading indicator of weather forecast of future stability in D. I'm hearing C++ compatibility will be added, and nothing will be removed. I'm hearing other features being added. Did anyone hear of something being moved downstream? Nope. God forbid users of D have to go to another git repo to get something they require.

Vic

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:16:25 +0000
Vic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 04:06:33 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 03:32:11 +0000
> > Vic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hence a prediction: major things will be moved out of core to 3rd party plugins to slim down the lang, because now it's more than a lang: it is a platform.
> >
> > D is not a platform. besides, GC is a core feature of D.
> 
> As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_%28software_platform%29
> Java is a platform as per wikipedia. D, I'll argue has more
> features.
> Hence: D *IS* a platform. It is obese. Instead of 'what if
> academics didn't write a language, but a compiler writer writes a
> language, the new culture is: academics are writing a sugary
> platform. (and do they use it on projects, a big part of open
> source is that you use what you write, at their day job their
> team use something else).
> 
> D 'has' a 'GC' for certain 'values' of working.  Data point:
> My company has 6 *full* time Sr Developers (15 years +) in
> Silicon Valley - one of the larger commercial D users(sad) - so I
> say that we use D (and only D) and for heavy lifting month in and
> month out. So when all 6 tell me GC does not work .... (for
> example allocate a large associative array and run a few threads
> - I may present this example at the 'D meetup silicon valley' in
> Jan meetup and publish example in git). So I tell you, when I see
> focus of the volunteer maintainers on 'what can I add' and not on
> 'what can I remove' it scares me to the bone as the CTO.
> Difference w/ Linus and Walter? Both are smart, Walter is a nice
> guy, and not a bastard.
> 
> So if maintainers decide that one of the thing to move is GC, one
> way,not the only way, is IOC | DI pattern (you can look up DI and
> IOC), it's doable, but it is like watching a fat person run 10
> yards, they would rather eat a donut).
> Leave the method(init, destroy) hooks and ref counting in core.
> People(p/t users of D) than inject the default GC(amateurs by
> definition as they don't get paid to D). So it would be just like
> now.
> 
> Professional teams/commercial users write a GC that fits that situation, possibly create a D utils open source project - and now you have an eco system of downstream open source projects and commercial users doing heavy lifting in D and 3rd: the corner case of people that use D just a little a few hours a week for a few weeks in a year.
> 
> But, I don't know I'm saying move GC, I'm saying move somethings.
> Exceptions like GO, the 12 generics features are sugary, etc.
> just open up Andreii's book and go to town. If it's not GC,
> remove something else to the point it is maintainable and
> commercial users can lean on a working D. I am saying lots of
> things should be moved, ex: split the compiler into core and
> pre-compiler for the academic but still needed plugins.
> Also, people, I' am a user, so I'm just wagging the tail. Listen
> to the maintainers as to the future direction, I focus on bigger
> or smaller as the leading indicator of weather forecast of future
> stability in D. I'm hearing C++ compatibility will be added, and
> nothing will be removed. I'm hearing other features being added.
> Did anyone hear of something being moved downstream? Nope. God
> forbid users of D have to go to another git repo to get something
> they require.

mind if i say that i don't give a shit about what "commercial users" want? and the last thing i want is cutting out language features. yes, "moving out of the core" == "cutting off". half-baked feature annoys people, so eventually somebody will do something with it. non-existant feature will remain non-existant for a long time.

as for "commercial users", once again... they can choose feature set they want and then... yeah, invest money and time in them. make that selected features work flawlessly. i still can't see why someone shoud care about "commercial users" that never invest anything except "we want XXX".

and i have a great way to know what "commercial users" really wants: the things they are paying for. no, that's not working like "do what we want and maybe we'll give you a cent or two". it's quite contrary, actually: "here's the money we'll pay for what we want". FOSS is not the box to which you shouting and then magically pulling the results for free.

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 14:39:30 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:16:25 +0000
> Vic via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 04:06:33 UTC, ketmar via clip
>
> mind if i say that i don't give a shit about what "commercial users"
> want? and the last thing i want is cutting out language features. yes,
> "moving out of the core" == "cutting off". half-baked feature annoys
> people, so eventually somebody will do something with it. non-existant
> feature will remain non-existant for a long time.
>
> as for "commercial users", once again... they can choose feature set
> they want and then... yeah, invest money and time in them. make that
> selected features work flawlessly. i still can't see why someone shoud
> care about "commercial users" that never invest anything except "we
> want XXX".
>
> and i have a great way to know what "commercial users" really wants:
> the things they are paying for. no, that's not working like "do what we
> want and maybe we'll give you a cent or two". it's quite contrary,
> actually: "here's the money we'll pay for what we want". FOSS is not
> the box to which you shouting and then magically pulling the results
> for free.

In fairness to commercial users though - and many have shown that
they are willing to put resources and money into open source
projects - they naturally need to feel that there is something
in it for them.  They need to believe that they are putting their
resources into a worthwhile project, that will eventually
benefit their commercial interests.

I have no doubt that if D could attract more commercial interest
it would ultimately be beneficial to the languages development.

	It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to
add, but when there is nothing more to remove.
			A. de Saint-Exupery

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Perfection

-- 
mailto:jeberger@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger@jabber.fr

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:52:04 +0000
CraigDillabaugh via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> In fairness to commercial users though - and many have shown that they are willing to put resources and money into open source projects - they naturally need to feel that there is something in it for them.  They need to believe that they are putting their resources into a worthwhile project, that will eventually benefit their commercial interests.
> 
> I have no doubt that if D could attract more commercial interest it would ultimately be beneficial to the languages development.

this is "do what we want and maybe we'll give you a cent or two".
they don't want to invest their money, i can understand that. they will
wait endlessly and there will always be a thing that "will turn D into
worthwhile project if somebody will do it." and if somebody will do it,
comms will find another reason. 'cause, you know, FOSS is the box where
comm can get free things. there is no reason to pay for free things.
it's always better to shout and to talk how doing what comm want will
turn D to "good project that worth investing". so "show me the money
first" i say.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 16:01:31 +0100
"Jérôme M. Berger" via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>
wrote:

> 	It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to
> add, but when there is nothing more to remove.
> 			A. de Saint-Exupery
> 
> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Perfection

the stone is perfect!

Jérôme M. Berger:

> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Perfection

This leads to Scheme :-)

Bye,
bearophile

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 at 14:39:30 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
<snip>
> mind if i say that i don't give a shit about what "commercial users"
> want? and the last thing i want is cutting out language features. yes,
> "moving out of the core" == "cutting off". half-baked feature annoys
> people, so eventually somebody will do something with it. non-existant
> feature will remain non-existant for a long time.
>
<snip>
>
> and i have a great way to know what "commercial users" really wants:
> the things they are paying for. no, that's not working like "do what we
> want and maybe we'll give you a cent or two". it's quite contrary,
> actually: "here's the money we'll pay for what we want". FOSS is not
> the box to which you shouting and then magically pulling the results
> for free.

Hi Ketmar,

1)I quote me: "How much $ funding so I consider it?"
 here in D form- http://tinyurl.com/ks7z9jy

2) http://www.meetup.com/D-Lang-Sillicon-Valley
This is us hosting and operating it, I hope people join 30 members so far for the first meet up in Jan.

3) I pay salaries for 6 full time D users, who use D.

So I hope you do care about D, and hence we have to work together.
I have a suggestion that one can have lots of features w/ stable core, both.

Adding features will not work, that is a fact that some don't see.
Moving them is painful, no question about that.
Current situation is we are stuck, ex:
" Anyone want to review these and see what we should add to
 Phobos?" from http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Algorithms_to_solve_programming_contest_problems_246363.html#N246363

Cheers,
Vic

Vic:

> Current situation is we are stuck, ex:
> " Anyone want to review these and see what we should add to
>  Phobos?" from http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Algorithms_to_solve_programming_contest_problems_246363.html#N246363

If D and Phobos become good to solve those contests then it will be a significant success for D. That's exactly one of the fields where D can shine a little. And if you do some of those contests, you will find that Phobos lacks some basic things. If you don't know what to do but you want to help, look in Bugzilla, there are plenty of Phobos bugs and enhancements to work on.

Bye,
bearophile