March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:49:22 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Yikes. That would *not* sit well with me. Before my last upgrade, my PC was at least 10 years old. (And the upgrade before that was at least 5 years prior.) Last year I finally replaced my 10 y.o. PC with a brand new AMD hexacore system. The plan being to not upgrade for at least the next 10 years, preferably more. :-)
LOL. I'm the complete opposite. I seem to end up upgrading my computer every 2 or 3 years. I wouldn't be able to stand being on an older computer that long. I'm constantly annoyed by how slow my computer is no matter how new it is. Of course, I do tend to stress my machine quite a lot by having a ton of stuff open all the time and doing CPU-intensive stuff like transcoding video, and how you use your computer is a definite factor in how much value there is in upgrading.
- Jonathan M Davis
|
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...] > writefln is still there with the same old functionality (which is good, it *is* a good function). It's just that writeln has been added and just happens to be better in every way for the majority of use-cases. [...] Strange, I still find myself using writef/writefln very frequently. When you want formatting in your output, printf specs are just sooo convenient. But perhaps it's just a symptom of my having just emerged from the C/C++ world. :-) T -- First Rule of History: History doesn't repeat itself -- historians merely repeat each other. |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Alex Rønne Petersen | On Saturday, March 10, 2012 20:48:05 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> No one forces you to upgrade.
What, you've never had the Apple police come to your door and force a new computer on you at gunpoint? ;)
- Jonathan M Davis
|
March 10, 2012 Re: Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:39:54AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > On 3/10/2012 11:02 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >Speaking of which, how's our progress on that front? What are the major roadblocks still facing us? > > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED Looks quite promising to me. Can we expect dmd 2.060 Real Soon Now(tm)? :-) T -- "Uhh, I'm still not here." -- KD, while "away" on ICQ. |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:56:03 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...]
>
> > writefln is still there with the same old functionality (which is good, it *is* a good function). It's just that writeln has been added and just happens to be better in every way for the majority of use-cases.
>
> [...]
>
> Strange, I still find myself using writef/writefln very frequently. When you want formatting in your output, printf specs are just sooo convenient. But perhaps it's just a symptom of my having just emerged from the C/C++ world. :-)
It's a question of what you're printing out. Is it more typical to write a string out without needing to construct it from some set of arguments, or is it more common to have to print a string that you've constructed from a set of arguments? It all depends on your code. There's no question that writef and writefln are useful. It's just a matter of what _your_ use cases are which determines whether you use writeln or writefln more.
- Jonathan M Davis
|
March 10, 2012 Re: Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.431.1331409456.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com... > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:39:54AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: >> On 3/10/2012 11:02 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: >> >Speaking of which, how's our progress on that front? What are the major roadblocks still facing us? >> >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED > > Looks quite promising to me. Can we expect dmd 2.060 Real Soon Now(tm)? > :-) > No. Unfortnately, 2.059 will have to come first. ;) |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.429.1331409266.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com... > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...] >> writefln is still there with the same old functionality (which is good, it *is* a good function). It's just that writeln has been added and just happens to be better in every way for the majority of use-cases. > [...] > > Strange, I still find myself using writef/writefln very frequently. When you want formatting in your output, printf specs are just sooo convenient. But perhaps it's just a symptom of my having just emerged from the C/C++ world. :-) > They are nice, but I've found that in most of my cases, the non-formatted version is all I usually need. It's great though that the formatted ones are there for the cases where I do need them. |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.427.1331409078.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com... > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:27:20PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tfdzpwcijnavdalmnzit@forum.dlang.org... >> > On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 18:57:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: >> >> It can hardly be called a success technology-wise. >> > >> > It is significantly ahead of its competition at the time. >> >> And it was a big advancement over 3.1. Pre-emptive multitasking anyone? > [...] > > I thought the Unix world has had that years before Windows. I just meant versus 3.1. I wouldn't know about Unix. > But not in the consumer PC market, I suppose. > I'm not sure I'd say there was a consumer-level Unix at all back then. |
March 10, 2012 Re: Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:59:28PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.431.1331409456.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com... > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:39:54AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > >> On 3/10/2012 11:02 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > >> >Speaking of which, how's our progress on that front? What are the major roadblocks still facing us? > >> > >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED > > > > Looks quite promising to me. Can we expect dmd 2.060 Real Soon Now(tm)? > > :-) > > > > No. Unfortnately, 2.059 will have to come first. ;) [...] Argh! I didn't realize dmd bumped its version in git immediately after a release, rather than before. At my day job, we do it the other way round (make a bunch of changes, test it, then bump the version once we decide it's ready to ship). T -- Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else. -- despair.com |
March 10, 2012 Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Adam D. Ruppe | On 03/09/2012 11:40 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > > On Windows though, even if you relied on bugs twenty > years ago, they bend over backward to keep your app > functioning. They stopped doing that a long time ago. There's a well-known blog article about this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html Some apps and hardware had trouble running on XP, and Vista took this to all new levels -- one of the reasons it got so much bad press. |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation