On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 03:21:03 +0000, Jerry wrote:
> There's only so much time and money someone can give. It isn't that appealing when virtually no other language out there suffers from this problem cause they have an actual market behind them.

Most languages have this problem. Most languages you actually hear about don't, because the marketing follows the money, and you hearing about a language follows the marketing.

D is unusual in how complete it's become without significant corporate backing, and how popular it is despite lacking a killer application.

On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 03:21:03 UTC, Jerry wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 at 16:36:10 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>> On Monday, 19 December 2016 at 23:02:59 UTC, Benjiro wrote:
>> So if you want to improve the language and its ecosystem, the best way is to contribute pull requests or $$$s - the Foundation now accepts individual donations, and it's also open to corporate sponsorship, I believe.
>>
>>> Editor support:
>>
>> Sublime text and sometimes vim work well enough for me, though these things are very personal.  For the others, have you contributed anything - time or money in making them better?  If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.  And contribution of either has a higher value than just the thing itself, because it also tends to energise the project - look at the frustration Basil experienced regarding his IDE project.  It's good to have high standards, but one should have some appreciation also for the gift that people make of their time, work, and energy in ways that don't always lead to the gratitude that one might expect.
>
> There's only so much time and money someone can give. It isn't that appealing when virtually no other language out there suffers from this problem cause they have an actual market behind them. Those markets fuel money being poured into the tools of the lanugage. It doesn't really matter how many users you have, it depends on the demographic of those users. If they are all students still in school, then you haven't really created a market.
>
> Anyways most of the IDEs out there are made by a small team or only one person. Not only that but they almost all (if not all) rely on the same projects to get the features you would expect in an IDE. The DCD, DScanner, DFix, DFmt etc... All those tools also seem to be developed primarily by the same single person. Rust seems to be in a similar situation but at least it seems the rust team has plans for adding IDE support into the compiler itself. Something that is probably unrealistic for D.
>
>>> Seb posted a massive list of modules that can be standard candidates. And the response is more or less ignore it. People who work on Standard libraries are more motivated. Bring  them into the fold. But it seems that they simple get ignored.
>>
>> Rome wasn't built in a year.  Great things are achieved by taking baby steps, compounded over time.  And if one does what little one can, others are inspired by it.  Enthusiasm and a constructive attitude are infectious in my experience.
>
> D isn't a year old though. If the steps you take are too small, you can also end up being left behind.


I'm working on a commercial IDE and GUI framework for a year and half and I'm not able to release any version due to this bug[1].
But nobody cares about fixing it because it doesn't give any benefits in opensource way to D or what.

I don't know how there can be any others closed source/commercial libraries for D when the one of the key features won't work.

Actually I wasted one and half year of developing project that I cannot release due to the bug. When I started I didn't even know that future existence of my project can depend on the compiler itself. Please, stop adding new features to D and start fixing existing ones.

- Satoshi

---
[1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16590

On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 08:35:52 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
> I'm working on a commercial IDE and GUI framework for a year and half and I'm not able to release any version due to this bug[1].
> But nobody cares about fixing it because it doesn't give any benefits in opensource way to D or what.
>
> I don't know how there can be any others closed source/commercial libraries for D when the one of the key features won't work.
>
> Actually I wasted one and half year of developing project that I cannot release due to the bug. When I started I didn't even know that future existence of my project can depend on the compiler itself. Please, stop adding new features to D and start fixing existing ones.
>
> - Satoshi
>
> ---
> [1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16590

Personally I'm not really looking for an IDE, I've settled for a text editor with a plugin for it. IDEs tend to be bulky and not be very good at manipulating text or rather lacking features to do so.

I don't see how the interface generator is stopping you from releasing the IDE anyways. All it would really stop is potentially third party plugins. Even then you can just write the interface files yourself. Wouldn't be that hard, just coping the source file and removing function bodies for the most part. What you'd need to do if you were writing C++ code, but you would keep the header and source files in sync as you were developing.

On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 09:37:06 UTC, Jerry wrote:
> Personally I'm not really looking for an IDE, I've settled for a text editor with a plugin for it. IDEs tend to be bulky and not be very good at manipulating text or rather lacking features to do so.

It depends on specific IDE.

> I don't see how the interface generator is stopping you from releasing the IDE anyways.

It's GUI framework (set of libraries) what I cannot release. IDE is without the libs quite useless.

>All it would really stop is
> potentially third party plugins. Even then you can just write the interface files yourself. Wouldn't be that hard, just coping the source file and removing function bodies for the most part. What you'd need to do if you were writing C++ code, but you would keep the header and source files in sync as you were developing.

Wouldn't be that hard but the project have 200k lines of code. Making header files manually is a wast of time what i don't have.

But the point is that D compiler specification[1] looks like this part works without a problem and is usable but it's a lie and nobody cares about it. Actually it will not ruin my project but complicates it. And this is not the way in which should business be made. 10 years of development and still some key features won't work properly.

[1] https://dlang.org/dmd-osx.html#interface-files

On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 10:52:45 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 10:52:45 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
> Making header files manually is a wast of time what i don't have.

Write your own header generator. Personally I don't get the point of writing an IDE if at a time or another you don't start working a bit around you know...D syntax, D grammar. Instead you seem to get stuck on first issue related to the language.

But what's the real issue ? You want to release a pre-compiled static library with headers ? Then you could license the sources, simply. Personally I've been client of a commercial GUI framework, and we get the sources with the license. It worked, I mean that the developer had clients.

On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 11:18:10 UTC, YAHB wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 10:52:45 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 10:52:45 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
>> Making header files manually is a wast of time what i don't have.
>
> Write your own header generator.
Yes, why not to write my own language.

> Personally I don't get the point of writing an IDE if at a time or another you don't start working a bit around you know...D syntax, D grammar.
Actually, I written an OS in D.

> Instead you seem to get stuck on first issue related to the language.
First issue? Developers of LDC can respond and fix issue in a real time but developers of D frontend not. And that's the thing what pissed me off.

> But what's the real issue ? You want to release a pre-compiled static library with headers ?
Yes.

> Then you could license the sources, simply.
No, thanks.

> Personally I've been client of a commercial GUI framework, and we get the sources with the license. It worked, I mean that the developer had clients.

On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 11:36:33 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 11:18:10 UTC, YAHB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 10:52:45 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 10:52:45 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
>>> Making header files manually is a wast of time what i don't have.
>>
>> Write your own header generator.
> Yes, why not to write my own language.

Pfff...too hard to use an AST visitor. And that wants to release a commercial IDE.

>
>> Personally I don't get the point of writing an IDE if at a time or another you don't start working a bit around you know...D syntax, D grammar.
> Actually, I written an OS in D.

True...an Outrageous Scam...

>
>> Instead you seem to get stuck on first issue related to the language.
> First issue? Developers of LDC can respond and fix issue in a real time but developers of D frontend not. And that's the thing what pissed me off.
>
>> But what's the real issue ? You want to release a pre-compiled static library with headers ?
> Yes.
>
>> Then you could license the sources, simply.
> No, thanks.

Just think to your strategy and try to be wise. Even Qt sources are available. There's at least 10 ways to waste a freelance commercial project.

>
>> Personally I've been client of a commercial GUI framework, and we get the sources with the license. It worked, I mean that the developer had clients.

On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 11:36:33 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 11:18:10 UTC, YAHB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 10:52:45 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 10:52:45 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
>> But what's the real issue ? You want to release a pre-compiled static library with headers ?
> Yes.

you'll be in front of another issue then: "dmd_personality"... unless you release the static library for DMD, LDC, GDC, + each version for each, basically debug + release...so already 6 ;]

On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 12:03:53 UTC, YAHB wrote:
>>>> Making header files manually is a wast of time what i don't have.
>>>
>>> Write your own header generator.
>> Yes, why not to write my own language.
>
> Pfff...too hard to use an AST visitor. And that wants to release a commercial IDE.
Compiler design is not my business.

>>> Personally I don't get the point of writing an IDE if at a time or another you don't start working a bit around you know...D syntax, D grammar.
>> Actually, I written an OS in D.
>
> True...an Outrageous Scam...
So funny...
https://github.com/Rikarin/Trinix

>>> Instead you seem to get stuck on first issue related to the language.
>> First issue? Developers of LDC can respond and fix issue in a real time but developers of D frontend not. And that's the thing what pissed me off.
>>
>>> But what's the real issue ? You want to release a pre-compiled static library with headers ?
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Then you could license the sources, simply.
>> No, thanks.
>
> Just think to your strategy and try to be wise. Even Qt sources are available. There's at least 10 ways to waste a freelance commercial project.
Qt is out of dated crap mostly useless for fast GUI development. Anyway, it's my project and I don't want to release source codes. No, it's not a freelance project, I got some money for dev and I already have clients waiting for stable release. There will be info soon.

>>> Personally I've been client of a commercial GUI framework, and we get the sources with the license. It worked, I mean that the developer had clients.
I don't need to follow same rules as others do.

On Wednesday, 28 December 2016 at 08:35:52 UTC, Satoshi wrote:
> I'm working on a commercial IDE and GUI framework for a year and half and I'm not able to release any version due to this bug[1].

...

> Please, stop adding new features to D and start fixing existing ones.
>
> - Satoshi
>
> ---
> [1] https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16590

You've got things reversed. The point of a company like Google or Sun backing a language is that things get done, like this bug fix, so that the language can be used for whatever that company needs it to do.

You claim you want to make money off the language, yet you are demanding that volunteers immediately fix a bug that is holding you back. That's an odd business model. You have three options: pay to fix it yourself, use a different language that allows you to benefit from work paid for by more profitable companies like Google, or wait for volunteers to do it on their schedule.

This is not unique to D. I'm reminded of Visual Studio not supporting C99 or Firefox not supporting certain HTML 5 features.