On 2014-08-07 19:15, Dicebot wrote:

> And here I also mean that all other Windows builds of compilers /
> interpreters I have used / tried passed that simple sanity test. Some
> may require complicated setup to do complicated things but "hello world"
> is always just that simple.
>
> Microsoft seems to be the only company who can afford doing things like
> that with users and expect them to suck it >_<

On OS X both work well. You can either just press "the button" or use the command line, assuming you have installed the command line tools.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 19:15:00 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-08-07 19:15, Dicebot wrote:
>
>> And here I also mean that all other Windows builds of compilers /
>> interpreters I have used / tried passed that simple sanity test. Some
>> may require complicated setup to do complicated things but "hello world"
>> is always just that simple.
>>
>> Microsoft seems to be the only company who can afford doing things like
>> that with users and expect them to suck it >_<
>
> On OS X both work well. You can either just press "the button" or use the command line, assuming you have installed the command line tools.

This is kind of why I picked up a Powerbook a decade ago, to be able to use the command-line and Unix and still have multimedia work well (linux/BSD audio/video have made major strides since then).  Then, among other reasons, I found out that Apple is using that money for stuff like this, and that's the first and last Apple product I ever bought:

http://www.cnet.com/news/us-patent-office-rejects-apple-autocomplete-patent-used-against-samsung/

On 8/7/2014 11:34 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
> It's not because it's hard, it's because it's perceived as totally
> backwards, and it undermines the trust in the ecosystem. It's all about
> perception.
>
> The Windows/Visual Studio development culture is pretty immature, and
> expects nothing less than the level of polish and presentation that
> Microsoft put into Visual Studio.
> I have direct experience with hundreds of these sorts of developers. The
> prevailing opinion is that Linux is rubbish for nerds, and if the ecosystem
> presents itself in that style, it won't be taken seriously. You can't gain
> the confidence of this community of developers unless you appeal to them on
> their terms. First impressions and basic presentation are extremely
> important to perception.
> I think configuration friction in particular is extremely important to
> eliminate; you are dealing with someone whose investment in D can be
> measured in seconds, probably knows absolutely nothing about the ecosystem
> technically, and is not yet sure if they even want to. Any friction between
> them and a helpful little wizard that generates a hello world project for
> them so they can start hacking about and see how it feels may quite
> possibly dismiss it on contact.
>

While I (unfortunately) agree with everything you've said here, I can't help chiming in with one thing: Speaking as a programmer who's primarily used Windows ever since 3.1, anyone who earns a paycheck writing code *and* believes "Linux is rubbish for nerds"[1], needs to grow the fuck up, both professionally and intellectually. It's absolutely no different from a grown adult being a console fanboy. It's just pathetic and completely inexcusable for any so-called "professional".

[1] And you're right, such people *do* (inexplicably) exist. I've known some.

On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 14:24:41 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> While I (unfortunately) agree with everything you've said here, I can't help chiming in with one thing: Speaking as a programmer who's primarily used Windows ever since 3.1, anyone who earns a paycheck writing code *and* believes "Linux is rubbish for nerds"[1], needs to grow the fuck up, both professionally and intellectually. It's absolutely no different from a grown adult being a console fanboy. It's just pathetic and completely inexcusable for any so-called "professional".
>
> [1] And you're right, such people *do* (inexplicably) exist. I've known some.

People take surprising pride in praising own ignorance and any philosophy that justifies such ignorance. When I started doing commercial programming after some years of open-source and hobby experiments biggest cultural shock was that many of my colleagues actually avoided learning anything out of the default comfort zone and called that _professional attitude_.

To take it from common holywar path : my rant was not about GUI vs console either, but about the fact that they distribute some programs that die with meaningless error unless certain system paths are manually specified. This is a terrible approach - I can't imagine any program installed via standard OS tools to act that way and not consider it a bug. Even majority of Windows programs I remember using were more responsible in that regard.

On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 12:51:53 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
> DMD v2.066.0-rc1 binaries are available for testing:
>
>     http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing

What about changelog?

http://dlang.org/changelog.html

In past it was pretty nicely made, but now it lists only 2 changes (unlike 2.065 and 2.064 comprehensive changelogs and judging by how much time passed since 2.065 it should be lengthy too).

On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 15:35:08 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 July 2014 at 12:51:53 UTC, Andrew Edwards wrote:
>> DMD v2.066.0-rc1 binaries are available for testing:
>>
>>    http://wiki.dlang.org/Beta_Testing
>
> What about changelog?
>
> http://dlang.org/changelog.html
>
> In past it was pretty nicely made, but now it lists only 2 changes (unlike 2.065 and 2.064 comprehensive changelogs and judging by how much time passed since 2.065 it should be lengthy too).

Kenji has an open pull request to flesh it out a bit more.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/616

Still not nearly as good as when Andrej had time to do it.

On 8/9/2014 10:57 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> actually avoided learning anything out of the default comfort zone and
> called that _professional attitude_.

People have some truly bizarre ideas about what constitutes professionalism. At a previous job I had, at one particular developer's meeting with one of the brass (it was a weekly meeting that primarily served to make this particular manager/co-owner feel like she was being useful - not that she ever was - by sticking her fingers where they didn't belong), by pure chance all the developers happened to be wearing shirts with collars. The manager made a big point about how happy she was to see that because (paraphrasing here) "shirt collars are professional".

Yea, forget competence, skill, ability, work ethic, demeanor...no, apparently "professionalism" involves..."shirt collars". Idiot.

That's not the only example of clothing-based naivety I've seen among people who *should* know better: It's truly disturbing how many businesspeople can be trivially fooled into thinking any old random con artist is a trustworthy professional, simply by the con artist walking into any dept store and buying a suit to wear. "Oh, I see he's wearing a suit. That means he must be very professional!"

People are morons.

On Monday, 11 August 2014 at 16:29:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 8/9/2014 10:57 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>> actually avoided learning anything out of the default comfort zone and
>> called that _professional attitude_.
>
> People have some truly bizarre ideas about what constitutes professionalism. At a previous job I had, at one particular developer's meeting with one of the brass (it was a weekly meeting that primarily served to make this particular manager/co-owner feel like she was being useful - not that she ever was - by sticking her fingers where they didn't belong), by pure chance all the developers happened to be wearing shirts with collars. The manager made a big point about how happy she was to see that because (paraphrasing here) "shirt collars are professional".
>
> Yea, forget competence, skill, ability, work ethic, demeanor...no, apparently "professionalism" involves..."shirt collars". Idiot.
>
> That's not the only example of clothing-based naivety I've seen among people who *should* know better: It's truly disturbing how many businesspeople can be trivially fooled into thinking any old random con artist is a trustworthy professional, simply by the con artist walking into any dept store and buying a suit to wear. "Oh, I see he's wearing a suit. That means he must be very professional!"
>
> People are morons.

The sad reality is that your physical appearance - including your clothing - can have a big impact on how people perceive you, so in many situations, wearing nicer clothing can have a definite impact. This is particularly true when dealing with stuff like sales where you're constantly having to deal with new people. That's not to say that clothing makes the man, but impressions like that can matter, even if it seems like they shouldn't. So, it makes a lot of sense for some folks to wear nicer clothes - or "professional" clothes - as part of their job. However, for engineers, it's ridiculous. We shouldn't normally be interacting with anyone where it would matter. So, attire like t-shirt and jeans should be fine. Our clothing should have little impact on our job. And in most cases, if an engineering manager is pushing for that sort of thing, I think that it's a very bad sign.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 8/11/2014 3:55 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
> The sad reality is that your physical appearance - including your
> clothing - can have a big impact on how people perceive you, so in many
> situations, wearing nicer clothing can have a definite impact. This is
> particularly true when dealing with stuff like sales where you're
> constantly having to deal with new people. That's not to say that
> clothing makes the man, but impressions like that can matter, even if it
> seems like they shouldn't. So, it makes a lot of sense for some folks to
> wear nicer clothes - or "professional" clothes - as part of their job.
> However, for engineers, it's ridiculous. We shouldn't normally be
> interacting with anyone where it would matter. So, attire like t-shirt
> and jeans should be fine. Our clothing should have little impact on our
> job. And in most cases, if an engineering manager is pushing for that
> sort of thing, I think that it's a very bad sign.
>

Yea, various things about appearance definitely have a subconscious effect on perception. That's a fairly deeply ingrained part of human nature, unfortunate as it may be.

But what really gets me is when people have it as a fully *conscious* belief, not just subconscious. Then my "WTF" meter just redlines.

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 17:05:29 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>
>> I've never encountered anybody try and use MSC from the command line in about 15 years professionally.
>>
>
> LOL. That's almost always how I use VS when I'm forced to use it at work. As soon as I figured out that I could build from the command line using VS, I stopped opening it unless I had to in order to run the debugger.
>
> But I'm not even vaguely a typical Windows developer. I'm pretty hardcore Linux, all things considered.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
>

Likewise, when I had to use windows and VS (for visualD+other stuff), running from command line was the only way I could find to execute my scripts, set appropriate environment variables etc, without having to spend time every time something changed clicking through options (which is terrible in most IDEs including VS). Command line saves time every time you have to do a task more than once, administer different machines etc.