> On 2013-04-10 21:30, Walter Bright wrote:
> I agree. The way to do it is to support both the old and the new ways for now. Anyone want to do a pull req?
> Also, this should be put in bugzilla as an enhancement request.

Let's agree on specifics before writing enhancement request, and possibly make a single one-time breaking change instead of several short-sighted ones.

With type A being -offilename and type B being -of=filename, how about:

1)
prevent any newly created flags of type A

2)
migrate all A flags to B flags. Here's one possible way to achieve
this (say in next dmd release):

dmd -offilename main.d //works but generates a warning for now, and
error after a certain time passed
dmd -old_flag -offilename main.d //works and doesn't generate a warning.
dmd -new_flag -of=filename main.d //works. After a certain time
passed, -new_flag is implied

Note, A and B flags can't be mixed, eg: -offilename -Ddoc=dir will give error, in all 3 cases above (ie for flags that are currently in the A style).

2b) Alternative: use a new binary name (dmd2) instead of -newflag. I
don't like this as much somehow.

3)
can we deprecate the current behavior where one can pass the file name
without extension (main vs main.d) as source? Consistency is better
than avoiding to type those 2 characters. I created a pathological
case with main.d is conflicting with main.d.d (with different
contents). Which one do you think is called when we call rdmd main.d ?
Note, I raised a very analogous concern here
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1871#issuecomment-16101987
regarding naming of object files in a flat hierarchy (see my example
with dmd -c -oq foo/mod.d foo_mod.d)

4)
The current strategy of rdmd is to treat as input arguments anything
after the first source file:
rdmd main.d myfirstprogramarg // a bit awkward, especially with
optional extension it gets hard to parse visually.

This is error prone, and inconsistent with dmd's behavior, which is: dmd src1.d -run main.d myfirstprogramarg //a bit awkward, need to split the source from the main file.

I suggest instead something simpler, explicit and consistent, using -args as a dmd command line argument, that would just work as well with rdmd:

dmd main.d src1.d -args myfirstprogramarg
rdmd main.d -args myfirstprogramarg


5)
currently we distinguish rdmd's arguments from dmd's arguments via
'--' vs '-'. A better way IMO would be to have a special flag
indicating the start of dmd's (or gdc/ldc...) flags: eg
rdmd --chatty --dflags -version=myversion main.d


Timothee Cour

On 11 April 2013 17:57, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:

> Am 11.04.2013 17:20, schrieb John Colvin:
>
>  On Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 15:15:09 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/11/13, Jonas Drewsen <nospam4321@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> By "I think that would be the way to go" I did not necessary refer to having both formats supported at the same time but simply to use the standard way that people know.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unix != universal standard.
>>>
>>
>> Next best thing.
>>
>
> Actually I would like to know how the desktop world would look like had Apple bought BeOS instead.
>
> This would mean no UNIX on the desktop, assuming Apple would have won a similar market as of today.
>
> --
> Paulo
>

Linux would have still taken off... and UNIX would still be relevant on the server market.  :)

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 09:54:30 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 11 April 2013 17:57, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
>
>> Am 11.04.2013 17:20, schrieb John Colvin:
>>
>>  On Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 15:15:09 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/11/13, Jonas Drewsen <nospam4321@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> By "I think that would be the way to go" I did not necessary
>>>>> refer to having both formats supported at the same time but
>>>>> simply to use the standard way that people know.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unix != universal standard.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Next best thing.
>>>
>>
>> Actually I would like to know how the desktop world would look like
>> had Apple bought BeOS instead.
>>
>> This would mean no UNIX on the desktop, assuming Apple would have
>> won a similar market as of today.
>>
>> --
>> Paulo
>>
>
> Linux would have still taken off... and UNIX would still be relevant on the
> server market.  :)

Not to mention supercomputers. There's a reason why they use(d) UNIX and linux and it's not because of apple.

On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 10:39:20 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 09:54:30 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 11 April 2013 17:57, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 11.04.2013 17:20, schrieb John Colvin:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 15:15:09 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/11/13, Jonas Drewsen <nospam4321@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> By "I think that would be the way to go" I did not necessary
>>>>>> refer to having both formats supported at the same time but
>>>>>> simply to use the standard way that people know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unix != universal standard.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Next best thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I would like to know how the desktop world would look like
>>> had Apple bought BeOS instead.
>>>
>>> This would mean no UNIX on the desktop, assuming Apple would have
>>> won a similar market as of today.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paulo
>>>
>>
>> Linux would have still taken off... and UNIX would still be relevant on the
>> server market.  :)
>
> Not to mention supercomputers. There's a reason why they use(d) UNIX and linux and it's not because of apple.

Sure but I was speaking about the home market, not the server market.

Then people would need to bash both Apple and Microsoft for not being UNIX like.

Although I like UNIX architecture, it is not the be all end all of operating system architecture.

I was lucky enough to play with various OS so far.

--
Paulo

On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 09:54:30 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 11 April 2013 17:57, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
>
>> Am 11.04.2013 17:20, schrieb John Colvin:
>>
>>  On Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 15:15:09 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/11/13, Jonas Drewsen <nospam4321@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> By "I think that would be the way to go" I did not necessary
>>>>> refer to having both formats supported at the same time but
>>>>> simply to use the standard way that people know.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unix != universal standard.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Next best thing.
>>>
>>
>> Actually I would like to know how the desktop world would look like
>> had Apple bought BeOS instead.
>>
>> This would mean no UNIX on the desktop, assuming Apple would have
>> won a similar market as of today.
>>
>> --
>> Paulo
>>
>
> Linux would have still taken off... and UNIX would still be relevant on the
> server market.  :)


Linux took off because it provided a way to port UNIX software at cost zero.

The companies where I developed in commercial UNIX platforms they only used Linux as a way to avoid paying UNIX licenses, not because Linux was something great.

The enterprise world only cares about money.

--
Paulo

On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 12:12:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 09:54:30 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 11 April 2013 17:57, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 11.04.2013 17:20, schrieb John Colvin:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 15:15:09 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/11/13, Jonas Drewsen <nospam4321@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> By "I think that would be the way to go" I did not necessary
>>>>>> refer to having both formats supported at the same time but
>>>>>> simply to use the standard way that people know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unix != universal standard.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Next best thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I would like to know how the desktop world would look like
>>> had Apple bought BeOS instead.
>>>
>>> This would mean no UNIX on the desktop, assuming Apple would have
>>> won a similar market as of today.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paulo
>>>
>>
>> Linux would have still taken off... and UNIX would still be relevant on the
>> server market.  :)
>
>
> Linux took off because it provided a way to port UNIX software at cost zero.
>
> The companies where I developed in commercial UNIX platforms they only used Linux as a way to avoid paying UNIX licenses, not because Linux was something great.
>
> The enterprise world only cares about money.
>
> --
> Paulo

I think we can probably agree that linux has become something quite great, despite that not being the initial reason for adoption.

Even if you don't like the basic architecture that much, the community and frameworks built on top of it have been spectacular.

On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 12:19:09 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 12:12:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 09:54:30 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>> On 11 April 2013 17:57, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 11.04.2013 17:20, schrieb John Colvin:
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 15:15:09 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/11/13, Jonas Drewsen <nospam4321@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By "I think that would be the way to go" I did not necessary
>>>>>>> refer to having both formats supported at the same time but
>>>>>>> simply to use the standard way that people know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unix != universal standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Next best thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually I would like to know how the desktop world would look like
>>>> had Apple bought BeOS instead.
>>>>
>>>> This would mean no UNIX on the desktop, assuming Apple would have
>>>> won a similar market as of today.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paulo
>>>>
>>>
>>> Linux would have still taken off... and UNIX would still be relevant on the
>>> server market.  :)
>>
>>
>> Linux took off because it provided a way to port UNIX software at cost zero.
>>
>> The companies where I developed in commercial UNIX platforms they only used Linux as a way to avoid paying UNIX licenses, not because Linux was something great.
>>
>> The enterprise world only cares about money.
>>
>> --
>> Paulo
>
> I think we can probably agree that linux has become something quite great, despite that not being the initial reason for adoption.

Fully agree, having access to Linux in 1995 allowed me to gain
skills I could use while working on DG-UX, HP-UX, Aix and Solaris
a few years later.

>
> Even if you don't like the basic architecture that much, the community and frameworks built on top of it have been spectacular.

Also fully agree.

I only mean that the community should move beyond basic UNIX clones, even if many of the concepts stay. Plan9, Minix, Mach, Hurd, or something else.

If we look at the application level for command line applications it has hardly changed since System V.

--
Paulo

On 4/12/13, Timothee Cour <thelastmammoth@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3)
> can we deprecate the current behavior where one can pass the file name
> without extension (main vs main.d) as source?

I never understood the purpose of this feature, anyone know why it was added?

On Thursday, 11 April 2013 at 15:15:09 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 4/11/13, Jonas Drewsen <nospam4321@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> By "I think that would be the way to go" I did not necessary
>> refer to having both formats supported at the same time but
>> simply to use the standard way that people know.
>
> Unix != universal standard.

Wasn't double hyphen introduced in GNU, not unix?

On 4/12/13, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:
> Wasn't double hyphen introduced in GNU, not unix?

I don't know but I don't like GNU conventions, especially their silly weirdo brace indentation style they use in GCC.