On 08/25/2012 08:36 PM, Andrew McKinlay wrote:
>> His post comes down to: "I like to have an IDE and I prefer Java
>> because I already know Java."
>
> Just for the record, I am no particular fan of the Java language - it's
> weak, boring, and often tedious.
> Any "loyalty" to Java that I have is not
> because I already know it,  but because it is a robust, stable,
> performant platform with a rich ecosystem of libraries and tools. I am
> very open to new languages. I learnt Java from scratch several years ago
> for a specific project. Other than that I have primarily used C++. I am
> always looking at language alternatives like Scala, Clojure, Erlang, and D.
>
> You're right that I like to have an IDE. But I think that applies to a
> large percentage of programmers.
>
> I fully admit to being a newbie at D and because of that I may be making
> incorrect judgements.

Oh, I am certainly not claiming that the judgements are incorrect. You
should use whatever works for you.

> However, keep in mind that every newcomer to D
> will be in the same position. If a language scares away newcomers, then
> it will have trouble gaining traction.
>
>> This is perfectly fine of course, but why would this be relevant for D
>> development?
>
> One relevance to D development may be that there are a lot of Java
> developers out there who are a potential source of converts.

Well, Java is a huge platform as well as a language. Furthermore, the
fact that the language feels weak, boring and often tedious is probably
a significant part of the reason it has been successful. I wouldn't
expect many people intimately familiar with the Java platform to
convert to D.

> Right or wrong, they are going to make many of the same comparisons as me.
>

Exactly. What I mean by 'because I already know Java' is, that those
comparisons will naturally be somewhat biased towards what
the developer already knows. It is not really a matter of right or
wrong. A programmer is likely to (attempt to) apply patterns that work
well in a language he is familiar with.

> All the things I mention can (and I'm sure will) be improved - the
> garbage collector, the libraries, the tools, etc.
>
> Just to be clear, I would love to see D be successful.

I think the blog post is entirely reasonable.
I was reacting mostly to Bjoern's statement "IMO a voice, D core
developers should listen to.", whose nature I may have misunderstood.

The point is, I don't think it is lacking on insight which efforts
might be worth following, it is more a matter of having enough
sufficiently skilled people dedicate their limited spare time. ;)

On Friday, 24 August 2012 at 23:58:19 UTC, Pragma Tix wrote:
> ----was Andrew McKinlay is trying D for Suneido.
>
> http://thesoftwarelife.blogspot.fr/2012/08/d-etractions.html
>
> You do not necessarily have to agree with Andrew, but this is a pragmatic developer's view.  Let me say that Andrew has created his own database system (Relational Algebra based) , his own language (Ruby like)  and his own application frame work. Finally he is using his Tools to create real world software.. i.e. Trucking/Transport / Accounting etc.
>
> IMO a voice, D core developers should listen to.
>
> Bjoern

I didn't see anything of relevance for this group, but it is a good statement of current affairs that those looking at D should be aware of. The "const" system is something I avoid and recommend avoiding, but look forward to seeing the final pieces being put together.

Personally I think he is completely wrong on the template note (for one development on hit has basically been complete for years). Templates are simple in D, but as you learn them you will want more and that power you want will be the complexity. I also don't think you need to know much about them to use them. However, Any question asked here will likely receive feedback on how to use templates/mixins and all their extravagance because of how idiomatic D they are.

On 08/25/2012 06:29 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>
> Everyone here is aware of these issues.

Yet when you replied you ignored them while trying to dismiss the post as a triviality.

On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 19:39:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> How many IDEs can handle the C preprocessor, with token pasting and all, when refactoring?

KDevelop, for example.

David

On 08/26/2012 08:22 AM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 08/25/2012 06:29 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>
>> Everyone here is aware of these issues.
>
> Yet  when you replied you ignored them

If you were expecting an exalted "pointing these out once again will
improve the development of D without bounds, thank you for sharing!",
then rest assured that this is not how things work.

> while trying to dismiss the post as a triviality.

Valuable posts are those that embody or document some creative effort.

Anyway, let us stop the meta-talk.

On 08/26/2012 08:51 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>
> If you were expecting an exalted "pointing these out once again will
> improve the development of D without bounds, thank you for sharing!",
> then rest assured that this is not how things work.

Nice strawman. You could have said, "Yes, these are important problems that we are aware of", but instead you ignored them and dismissed the post with an insulting summary.

> Anyway, let us stop the meta-talk.

Sure, as it takes two to do that feel free not to reply.

Le 26/08/2012 01:14, Walter Bright a écrit :
> On 8/25/2012 3:32 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2012-08-25 21:39, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> How many IDEs can handle the C preprocessor, with token pasting and all,
>>> when refactoring?
>>
>> 1. Any IDE based on libclang should be able to handle this. Xcode 4
>> uses libclang.
>>
>> 2. The C preprocessor is no excuse to why we shouldn't have good
>> refactoring
>> tools for D.
>
> I'm not saying it's an excuse, I'm saying that people don't say C IDEs
> are a failure because of this.
>

Well this is known problem. People expect from new languages to solve such problems.

On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 22:40:56 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:36:08 +0200
> "SomeDude" <lovelydear@mailmetrash.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 00:20:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> > On 08/25/2012 01:58 AM, Pragma Tix wrote:
>> >> ----was Andrew McKinlay is trying D for Suneido.
>> >>
>> >> http://thesoftwarelife.blogspot.fr/2012/08/d-etractions.html
>> >>
>> >> You do not necessarily have to agree with Andrew, but this is a
>> >> pragmatic developer's view.  Let me say that Andrew has created his own
>> >> database system (Relational Algebra based) , his own language (Ruby
>> >> like)  and his own application frame work. Finally he is using his Tools
>> >> to create real world software.. i.e. Trucking/Transport / Accounting etc.
>> >>
>> >> IMO a voice, D core developers should listen to.
>> >>
>> >> Bjoern
>> >
>> > His post comes down to: "I like to have an IDE and I prefer Java
>> > because I already know Java."
>> > This is perfectly fine of course, but why would this be relevant for D
>> > development?
>> 
>> No, he points out that 1) templates inherently complexify code 2) make refactoring difficult, especially automated refactoring, something that is supported by major modern IDEs and not by text editors like vim/emacs, because the former have some knowledge of the AST, not the latter.
>> I know the first point is debatable; maybe there is less need for refactoring as the language is more expressive, but when refactoring is needed, it's probably much more difficult than in Java/C#, especially without the help of tools.
>
> FWIW: Personally, I would argue that (as nice as automated refactoring
> admittedly is) putting up with a simplistic less expressive language for
> the sake of niceties like (perfect) automated refactoring is putting the
> cart before the horse. It'd be like putting up with starvation because
> you can't find a salad marked "organic". Having automated refactoring be
> less-than-perfect is a price, yes, but it's a very small price to pay
> for the much bigger savings you get from having powerful
> metaprogramming.
>
> Plus, certain non-automatic refactorings would be a much bigger pain in
> something like Java anyway because of, for example, the lack of type
> inference and the increased need for code to be non-generic in the first
> place.
>
> My $0.02, anyway.

I mostly agree, although some basic refactoring like a simple renaming is also very handy.

On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 23:02:52 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Of course, D also has other things besides reflection that can mess with
> refactorings, like mixins+ctfe, but hey, anyone can still stick a
> code-generator in front of a call to "javac", and you've got the same
> problem (only clunkier to use and even *less* likely to be
> refactorable).

Code generation is evil. I now avoid almost all the frameworks based on code generation, it almost always generates crap.

On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 19:48:33 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

> As for the IDE, he mentioned Scala, and there the developers made an effort to support the IDE in the compiler so that work wouldn't be duplicated and the IDE would support the latest language release. They also had funding and hired somebody to work on the Eclipse plugin full time.

I wish Walter went on kickstarter to get public funds allowing him to hire a couple of full time developers.