On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 03:50:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> C and C++ are very general-purpose, but they can still be considered as a "niche" of performance languages.  What's wrong with D aiming for that "niche?"

That would be great, but the language designers are not aiming for it. The ideal in that niche is to use the hardware/OS features directly, including the threading model. Phobos + GC is way too invasive and presumptuous.

But C/C++/LLVM is already suffering from being based on scalars. Will it be able to keep up when vector based IRs mature? Will languages not built around SIMD and cache locality survive? Hard to say...

On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 07:35:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2015-02-02 06:57, ketmar wrote:
>
>> dub is good, but only in limited use cases. so it's almost no sense in
>> using dub if some use cases are not suitable for it: it's way better to
>> adapt build tool that one already using (or write his own) instead of use
>> TWO build tools for different projects.
>
> Dub should have been two tools, one for package management and one for building.

Indeed. Most of the issues I hear about stem from it trying to do both at the same time. It's a good package manager but unfortunately a not so good build system. This makes me think, once more, of writing a D build system that uses dub only for package dependencies.

Atila

On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 12:36 +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> 
[…]
> Indeed. Most of the issues I hear about stem from it trying to do both at the same time. It's a good package manager but unfortunately a not so good build system. This makes me think, once more, of writing a D build system that uses dub only for package dependencies.
> 

Given Gradle is both a dependency and build manager, and is the standard platform for Android builds, and has C++ as well as JVM languages support, I would suggest it would be a great base.
-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 00:14:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/1/15 1:46 PM, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On 2/1/15, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
>> <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2015H1
>>
>> - Create the D Language Foundation
>>
>> What exactly is this idea about, can you elaborate a bit?
>
> Glad you asked. We currently have a few expenses associated with D operation. Walter and I prefer to be discreet about such, but some of them are fairly obvious and non-negligible - such as DConf.
>
> Such expenses have been covered by the kickstarter campaign (for DConf 2013) and now are going out of Walter's and my pocket. We've increased expenditures lately, to good effect, and would like to continue to do so but of course without becoming homeless in the process :o). It's become clear to us that the best way to scale things up is a formal framework, and a foundation is a commonly-used mechanism for such.
>
> A foundation would provide a fair and transparent way for us to accept contributions, small and large, from interested parties, and apply them to further understanding and adoption of D.

By the way I have forwarded the information that something is brewing to Sociomantic leadership - will report if they would want to participate in it one way or another :)

On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 12:36:14 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 07:35:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2015-02-02 06:57, ketmar wrote:
>>
>>> dub is good, but only in limited use cases. so it's almost no sense in
>>> using dub if some use cases are not suitable for it: it's way better to
>>> adapt build tool that one already using (or write his own) instead of use
>>> TWO build tools for different projects.
>>
>> Dub should have been two tools, one for package management and one for building.
>
> Indeed. Most of the issues I hear about stem from it trying to do both at the same time. It's a good package manager but unfortunately a not so good build system. This makes me think, once more, of writing a D build system that uses dub only for package dependencies.
>
> Atila

I agree that this is desired course of actions (I actually sometimes use it this way, wrapping dub into makefiles :P) but that can be a bit tricky when you think about different package types - binaries, source libraries, shared libraries. The fact that dub does both fetching and building ensures that all dependencies are compiled in uniform compatible matter - any decoupling proposal would need to ensure this stays.

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:50:54 +0000, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
> Given Gradle is both a dependency and build manager, and is the standard platform for Android builds, and has C++ as well as JVM languages support, I would suggest it would be a great base.

I've been using CMake (with patches[1]) just fine[2].

--Ben

[1]https://github.com/trentforkert/cmake [2]https://github.com/mathstuf/abagames-gunroar

On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 05:17:40 UTC, Jerry Morrison wrote:
> On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 03:50:10 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> C and C++ are very general-purpose, but they can still be considered as a "niche" of performance languages.  What's wrong with D aiming for that "niche?"
>
> Most uses of C & C++ that haven't migrated to well-supported garbage-collected languages by now are those that cannot work with a garbage collector and/or are heavily tied to an existing C++ code base. Offering something much better for that niche/domain would be a great opportunity, and not a small niche.
>
> The point is to focus efforts for one release on fully addressing what that domain requires. The next release can focus on another domain. And so on.

Well, given the current focus on @nogc and C++ integration, it appears that niche has been chosen, and you and Ola get your wish.

On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 18:20:18 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> Well, given the current focus on @nogc and C++ integration, it appears that niche has been chosen, and you and Ola get your wish.

Uhm... I don't think D-side STL and C++ exceptions is a good idea. I don't think tying the runtime to C++/C runtime is a good idea.

Most "indispensable" C/C++ libraries can be wrapped in a light weight fashion (but generating C++ code from D to instantiate templates utilizing "clang as a library" seems useful...).

On Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 01:17:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> Walter and I have been mulling for a while on a vision for the first six months of 2015.
>
> http://wiki.dlang.org/Vision/2015H1
>
> This is stuff we consider important for D going forward and plan to work actively on. We encourage the D community to focus contributions along the same lines.

While a don't see the content as disagreeable, I do find it to be a lot to focus on for the next 6 months.

* Improve language stability
* Memory Management
* Safety
* C++ integration

These all seem like that could deserve their own 6 months of focus. These should all get work, but it just seems that if you're going to take priority on something it shouldn't be spread across so many large tasks. Or maybe there just needs to be a list of things not taking priority.