On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 12:27:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> I wonder what kind of programming people plan or _hope_ to use D for in 2016?
>
> Do you have plans to:


> 7. work on the D language/phobos ?

Find some time to catch up to the latest mater and document the module properly.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2945

> 8. or something else?

I recently got my Unwired One[1] so I'm likely to be playing with it in C and may make some attempts to get D running on it. I have some thoughts on using FIDO U2F on the board.

1. http://www.unwireddevices.com/en/

But I haven't really been making time for programming outside of work.

On Friday, 8 January 2016 at 08:24:59 UTC, Jakob Jenkov wrote:
>> I've just finished with the initial version of my project to embed R inside D. Hopefully now I can convince other economists to use it.
>>
>> I might put together a simple web interface (using D of course) that will improve my research collaboration efforts. The earliest I will have time to work on it will be the summer.
>
> How does this work? Do you write R programs which are executed by a D program?
> Or do you call functions in D which corresponds to R functions?

Either direction. Earlier I wrote dmdinline[1]. You can write small D functions and call them from R. It works well on Linux, but not on anything else. That makes it hard to collaborate.

In the other direction, you write a D program with an embedded R instance as with RInside. You do anything you want with your R interpreter. Importantly, it works on all OSes that run R.

The communication is the easy part. The time consuming part is converting R objects to D objects and vice versa. I've had to learn the internals of R at the same time that I've learned D. I've been working on it in my spare time for more than two years.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/bachmeil/dmdinline2

On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 21:56:43 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 15:32:52 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>>
>> Hopefully now I can convince other economists to use it.
>
> Probably more work than writing it in the first place!

Maybe. But as long as I can use it for my work, I'm happy.

> The communication is the easy part. The time consuming part is converting R objects to D objects and vice versa. I've had to learn the internals of R at the same time that I've learned D. I've been working on it in my spare time for more than two years.

Would it have been possible to make a D API for data analysis instead? Or is that too big a job?

On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 19:39:44 UTC, Jakob Jenkov wrote:
>> The communication is the easy part. The time consuming part is converting R objects to D objects and vice versa. I've had to learn the internals of R at the same time that I've learned D. I've been working on it in my spare time for more than two years.
>
> Would it have been possible to make a D API for data analysis instead? Or is that too big a job?

You could program anything in D that would run in R and it would probably be faster (unless the R code is using some optimized C/C++ code already). The issue is that D libraries for data analysis aren't as developed and don't have as many people working on them as R. You might be more productive calling an R library than re-writing the same functionality in D.

On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 21:40:02 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 January 2016 at 19:39:44 UTC, Jakob Jenkov wrote:
>>> The communication is the easy part. The time consuming part is converting R objects to D objects and vice versa. I've had to learn the internals of R at the same time that I've learned D. I've been working on it in my spare time for more than two years.
>>
>> Would it have been possible to make a D API for data analysis instead? Or is that too big a job?
>
> You could program anything in D that would run in R and it would probably be faster (unless the R code is using some optimized C/C++ code already). The issue is that D libraries for data analysis aren't as developed and don't have as many people working on them as R. You might be more productive calling an R library than re-writing the same functionality in D.

In many cases, such as graphics, speed is not an issue so a rewrite won't help. By integrating R inside D, an existing R user gives up nothing - you can choose how much to write in D vs R.

On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 12:27:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> I wonder what kind of programming people plan or _hope_ to use D for in 2016?
>
> Do you have plans to:
>
> 1. migrate legacy C++ code bases to D when C++ bindings are final?
>
> 2. integrate with numerical solutions like TensorFlow?
>
> 3. create web services with vibe.d?
>
> 4. run D apps in the cloud?
>
> 5. run D apps on mobile?
>
> 6. create runtime less programs (games, embedded)?
>
> 7. work on the D language/phobos ?
>
> 8. or something else?
>
>
> What other languages do you think you will use or toy with in 2016 and for what purpose?
>
> What would it take for you to use D instead, or what changes would be needed for you to move from language X to D?

So one year later ? Did you follow the guideline you've individually indicated in this topic ?

On 02/01/2017 9:51 PM, Basile B. wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 12:27:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> I wonder what kind of programming people plan or _hope_ to use D for
>> in 2016?
>>
>> Do you have plans to:
>>
>> 1. migrate legacy C++ code bases to D when C++ bindings are final?
>>
>> 2. integrate with numerical solutions like TensorFlow?
>>
>> 3. create web services with vibe.d?
>>
>> 4. run D apps in the cloud?
>>
>> 5. run D apps on mobile?
>>
>> 6. create runtime less programs (games, embedded)?
>>
>> 7. work on the D language/phobos ?
>>
>> 8. or something else?
>>
>>
>> What other languages do you think you will use or toy with in 2016 and
>> for what purpose?
>>
>> What would it take for you to use D instead, or what changes would be
>> needed for you to move from language X to D?
>
> So one year later ? Did you follow the guideline you've individually
> indicated in this topic ?

Lets see, image library got a review thread check, windowing library no, assembly stuff yup!

For windowing library I'm moving over to SPEW[0][1] for development.

Image library isn't my focus right now, I need to get SPEW up and going for OpenGL[2] before I go back to that.
The bindings creator is absolutely amazing in that it generates it with docs! I'm not aware of any bindings like that in any language ;)

I've learned a lot about x86, got a good way into an x86 encoder/decoder. With very good documentation[3].
Currently playing around with a bytecode form.

[0] http://spew.cf/
[1] https://github.com/Devisualization/spew
[2] https://github.com/rikkimax/ogl_gen
[3] http://samples.leanpub.com/alphacodegen-sample.pdf

On Monday, 2 January 2017 at 08:51:13 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 12:27:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> I wonder what kind of programming people plan or _hope_ to use D for in 2016?
>>
>> Do you have plans to:
>>
>> 1. migrate legacy C++ code bases to D when C++ bindings are final?
>>
>> 2. integrate with numerical solutions like TensorFlow?
>>
>> 3. create web services with vibe.d?
>>
>> 4. run D apps in the cloud?
>>
>> 5. run D apps on mobile?
>>
>> 6. create runtime less programs (games, embedded)?
>>
>> 7. work on the D language/phobos ?
>>
>> 8. or something else?
>>
>>
>> What other languages do you think you will use or toy with in 2016 and for what purpose?
>>
>> What would it take for you to use D instead, or what changes would be needed for you to move from language X to D?
>
> So one year later ? Did you follow the guideline you've individually indicated in this topic ?

Mine was here:

https://forum.dlang.org/thread/gidcyqfypkwgqpqazngx@forum.dlang.org?page=2

point 7: I wished to make at least one PR in your org per month, which is done (mostly phobos bugfixes, a bit of ddoc in the specs).

point 8: I haven't done much personnal stuff in D last year. Kheops sucks. I'd like to use Skia instead of Cairo but even if I finish it I know that I'll probably never use it. My user library, iz, didn't advance much. I've made a programming tool this year (IsItThere) but it would still need some work to be publicly announced.

On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 12:27:12 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

so, mine results are:
> 1. migrate legacy C++ code bases to D when C++ bindings are final?
never wanted, never did. accomplished.

> 2. integrate with numerical solutions like TensorFlow?
never wanted, never did. accomplished.

> 3. create web services with vibe.d?
never wanted, never did. accomplished.

> 4. run D apps in the cloud?
never wanted, never did. accomplished.

> 5. run D apps on mobile?
never wanted, never did. accomplished.

> 6. create runtime less programs (games, embedded)?
never wanted, never did. accomplished.

> 7. work on the D language/phobos ?
aliced is alive and kicking. accomplished.

> 8. or something else?
i have no life, so no. accomplished.

> What other languages do you think you will use or toy with in 2016 and for what purpose?
none. mine CPU is too weak, it can support only one language at a time.

> What would it take for you to use D instead, or what changes would be needed for you to move from language X to D?
dunno. completely moved years ago.