"Dave" <Dave_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d0ptf3$2h16$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > All sounds good, apart from the Impact to the lexer/parser. Why should only the subset of the entire potential user community who are well-versed/expert in the ways of compiler technology be the only ones whose proposals are considered?
> >
>
> I don't think Eric meant in in that way.. I don't think he was implying
that
> compiler developers themselves should have an inordinate amount of sway in the design of the language, but that the /impact/ on the compiler should
be
> an important consideration.

Ease of compiler implementation matters. Back in the old days, I was told by some members of the C++ committee that implementation ease was irrelevant. The C++ community is still paying for that attitude with unimplementable features, a shrinking number of C++ vendors, and erraticly different behavior from one compiler to the next.

> "Charlie Patterson" <charliep1@excite.com> wrote in message news:d0q958$2u1c$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>I think Walter needs to lay down the official language rules for 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0.  Some may not like them and drop off, but it would be nice if 1.0 were no longer a moving target.  2.0 will be open for discussion, proofs, hissy-fits, etc, until it gets closer.
>>
>> Once the target stops moving, people, happy or not, can focus on writing books, improved libraries, ports, IDEs, whatever with much more confidence. That means no view towards 2.0 while writing these things.

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:d0qjg2$803$4@digitaldaemon.com...
> But do you take Kris' point made a few days ago, that in some sense this language now belongs to us all?

Matthew, you're a very smart guy but your attempts to have your way here just shine through!  (Or is it just me?)  I've watched 100-post discussions on the same facts in just a month's time and I understand that it has been going on.  From my point of view "your" team and "Walter's" team both make perfect sense to me, so there will be no solution.

Nothing is being set in stone that can't be added, that I can think of.  It is still a.length, no warnings in the language, and asserts in some code, etc.  None of these require backing out of a reasonable syntax.  Warnings could be added, and syntactic sugar could be dolloped on later.  I have yet to see anyone bitch about the Java features that are included or templates, etc. so it can move forward.  (I've had a few ideas, but I dont' think it is worth bringing up the issue.  Well except for why we need the word "new" :-))

So my point is that this is Walter's language even if it is "our" community. There is so much to do after a language is set down that it is starting to worry me.  Books, template libs, GUI, etc.  These could take months to review and rethink.  Honestly, I don't think I'll be able to keep my interest up personally through another 2 or 3 rounds of squabbling over additional features for 1.0.

I don't think the whole thing will fall apart if you don't get a few more things your way.  :-P

In conclusion, since both sides make logical sense up to the opint that no one can be sure what is best, it seems the leadership of the creator makes sense.

Then, if you want, you can fork the spec and make the E language and take your half of the fans with you.  (-:

Charlie Patterson wrote:
>>"Charlie Patterson" <charliep1@excite.com> wrote in message news:d0q958$2u1c$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>>I think Walter needs to lay down the official language rules for 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0.  Some may not like them and drop off, but it would be nice if 1.0 were no longer a moving target.  2.0 will be open for discussion, proofs, hissy-fits, etc, until it gets closer.
>>>
>>>Once the target stops moving, people, happy or not, can focus on writing books, improved libraries, ports, IDEs, whatever with much more confidence. That means no view towards 2.0 while writing these things.
> 
> 
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:d0qjg2$803$4@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>But do you take Kris' point made a few days ago, that in some sense this language now belongs to us all?
> 
> 
> Matthew, you're a very smart guy but your attempts to have your way here just shine through!  (Or is it just me?)  I've watched 100-post discussions on the same facts in just a month's time and I understand that it has been going on.  From my point of view "your" team and "Walter's" team both make perfect sense to me, so there will be no solution.
> 
> Nothing is being set in stone that can't be added, that I can think of.  It is still a.length, no warnings in the language, and asserts in some code, etc.  None of these require backing out of a reasonable syntax.  Warnings could be added, and syntactic sugar could be dolloped on later.  I have yet to see anyone bitch about the Java features that are included or templates, etc. so it can move forward.  (I've had a few ideas, but I dont' think it is worth bringing up the issue.  Well except for why we need the word "new" :-))
> 
> So my point is that this is Walter's language even if it is "our" community. There is so much to do after a language is set down that it is starting to worry me.  Books, template libs, GUI, etc.  These could take months to review and rethink.  Honestly, I don't think I'll be able to keep my interest up personally through another 2 or 3 rounds of squabbling over additional features for 1.0.
> 
> I don't think the whole thing will fall apart if you don't get a few more things your way.  :-P
> 
> In conclusion, since both sides make logical sense up to the opint that no one can be sure what is best, it seems the leadership of the creator makes sense.
> 
> Then, if you want, you can fork the spec and make the E language and take your half of the fans with you.  (-:
> 
> 

I disagree.  Matthew and Kris both have made a strong argument.

The D language has received so many suggestions, ideas, and contributions from the community over the years that D is no longer merely Walter's brainchild anymore. His general ideology remains at it's base and guides it's development, but the language as it is today (including libraries) can no longer be called his own.  Naturally, fame and fortune as the originator of D will always be his to claim.

In order for D to succeed, leadership is indeed critical, but this does not mean such leadership monopolizes on opinion.  Leadership provides management and direction, something that is Walter's right and obligation.  But such a leader must encourage critical analysis, test ideas, promote invention and manipulate order from chaos.  As appears to be recently evidenced, I believe Walter is taking the first steps in this direction; this is indeed exciting.  Although as manager /and/ coder, his job description is weighty.  (Walter has also admitted, I believe, on several occasions that he is a better coder than manager.)

On the other hand, if his "dictatorship" resists any thought, opinion, discourse, or experimentation, he will be quite effective in securing failure in D's future.  Therefore, it's within his best interests to be as open as possible and to be attentive to reasonable examination.

Walter's receptiveness to critical opinion may be the deciding factor for D's success or failure.  In addition, any view that focuses on D as being "Walter's language" alone may further stifle any prescient view we have of D's future as a successful pandemic programming language.

I want D to succeed.  I desire it deeply.  Kris and Matthew are doing a great job of keeping the pressure on Walter.  I hope these guys stick around for a very long time.  Their opinions are not always right, but that's why the other bright minds in this community are here, to keep everything in balance.  And me?  I'm just here to watch the fireworks. ;-)

All the best,

-JJR

"Charlie Patterson" <charliep1@excite.com> wrote in message news:d0t6ci$lvs$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> "Charlie Patterson" <charliep1@excite.com> wrote in message news:d0q958$2u1c$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>I think Walter needs to lay down the official language rules for 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0.  Some may not like them and drop off, but it would be nice if 1.0 were no longer a moving target.  2.0 will be open for discussion, proofs, hissy-fits, etc, until it gets closer.
>>>
>>> Once the target stops moving, people, happy or not, can focus on writing books, improved libraries, ports, IDEs, whatever with much more confidence. That means no view towards 2.0 while writing these things.
>
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:d0qjg2$803$4@digitaldaemon.com...
>> But do you take Kris' point made a few days ago, that in some sense this language now belongs to us all?
>
> Matthew, you're a very smart guy but your attempts to have your way here just shine through!  (Or is it just me?)  I've watched 100-post discussions on the same facts in just a month's time and I understand that it has been going on.  From my point of view "your" team and "Walter's" team both make perfect sense to me, so there will be no solution.
>
> Nothing is being set in stone that can't be added, that I can think of.  It is still a.length, no warnings in the language, and asserts in some code, etc.  None of these require backing out of a reasonable syntax.  Warnings could be added, and syntactic sugar could be dolloped on later.  I have yet to see anyone bitch about the Java features that are included or templates, etc. so it can move forward. (I've had a few ideas, but I dont' think it is worth bringing up the issue.  Well except for why we need the word "new" :-))
>
> So my point is that this is Walter's language even if it is "our" community. There is so much to do after a language is set down that it is starting to worry me.  Books, template libs, GUI, etc.  These could take months to review and rethink.  Honestly, I don't think I'll be able to keep my interest up personally through another 2 or 3 rounds of squabbling over additional features for 1.0.
>
> I don't think the whole thing will fall apart if you don't get a few more things your way.  :-P
>
> In conclusion, since both sides make logical sense up to the opint that no one can be sure what is best, it seems the leadership of the creator makes sense.
>
> Then, if you want, you can fork the spec and make the E language and take your half of the fans with you.  (-:

You're correct in that I want my way. In that I am no more and no less human than the majority of people.

But you are *dead wrong* if you think that I am trying to unduly wrest control from Walter and/or turn people against him. With a ***very*** few exceptions, Walter has more of my respect than anyone else in this industry, irrespective of language or country or company. But I no more believe him infallible by dint of his being exceedingly capable and intelligent and, at least in many aspects, a better software engineer than me, than I do that Einstein was an unmitigated genius. [Einstein was inspired/genius wrt relativity (general and relative), but something of a dunce when it came to quantum theory.]

Your proposition is ironic indeed, because you will not find someone more interested in D succeeding *intact* than me. And, though you could not know, I have worked hard over the last two years, both within and without this forum, to try and keep the D community from the fragmentation that you think I am attempting to foment. You could not be more wrong.

I can only assume that you are mistaking the fervour of my recent involvement with negativity. Again, you could not be more wrong. [Maybe it's a cultural thing? In my culture(s) we do not equate (considered) criticism with negativism. At least not to the degree that we've had to invent another verb for it ... ;) ] If I thought D was doomed, I wouldn't be here. It's not like I don't have a ridiculously long to-do list sitting on my desk, scaring me in the eye as I write this.

I now, more than ever, believe that D is going to succeed. But it is not
without flaws at this point, some of which are, to be blunt, simply
awful (IMO) and, more concerningly, out of step with the language'
s claims and intents. That it may be superior to (many) other languages
in some/most aspects right is of little consequence. It is not as good
as it could be. And, until it is, or until Walter sends me an email
saying he no longer values my participation, I'm going to keep pointing
out flaws, and working in any/all other aspects within my purview to
improve the language, the libraries, and to popularise them.

And I ain't going to apologise for it.

Cheers

Matthew

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:d0tfvp$12d2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>

> You're correct in that I want my way. In that I am no more and no less human than the majority of people.

I respect that.

> But you are *dead wrong* if you think that I am trying to unduly wrest control from Walter and/or turn people against him.

Well there's such thing as a coup, which I am not implying; and then there is passive aggresive personality issues, which I am.  (-:  I don't think you are trying to turn anybody against him, but I do think you are doing everything short of it.  I think if your ideas, all good but not perfect, were put to a vote for version 1.0, you wouldn't get a strong majority.

> Your proposition is ironic indeed, because you will not find someone more interested in D succeeding *intact* than me.

See, that's just it.  "Intact" to you means your way!  It is "intact", I suppose, from Walter's point of view right now.  But I'm not here to speak for anyone else.

> And, though you could not know, I have worked hard over the last two years, both within and without this forum, to try and keep the D community from the fragmentation that you think I am attempting to foment. You could not be more wrong.

I have no doubt.

> I now, more than ever, believe that D is going to succeed. But it is not
> without flaws at this point, some of which are, to be blunt, simply awful
> (IMO) and, more concerningly, out of step with the language'
> s claims and intents. That it may be superior to (many) other languages in
> some/most aspects right is of little consequence. It is not as good as it
> could be. And, until it is, or until Walter sends me an email saying he no
> longer values my participation, I'm going to keep pointing out flaws, and
> working in any/all other aspects within my purview to improve the
> language, the libraries, and to popularise them.

You will never get a letter devaluing your participation and shouldn't.  But you keep using words like "flaws" in D and, from what I've read, I don't see the issues as flawed as they stand and unflawed when you get your way.

There is a problem space here and there, such as asserts on missing returns. I read both sides, I have a Master's and a ABD PhD in computers, and I don't see the *answer* in either of your sides.  In other words, either way can have bad consequences and, even if one way has more bad consequences than the other, we can debate which type of consequences are worse until we turn blue.

This means someone has to come up with a wonderful new "a-ha" that will require backing up the decision tree and rethinking the whole mess in a new light (and I've seen many here do that in various situations),  or it means that we will remain without any answer that satisfies.  In the latter case, I'm just saying it is my opinion that Walter just does what he intended and desires and we make it to 1.0.  It is also my off-the-cuff opinion that when Walter makes these decisions, it requires less complexity and finality, which means there is a spot for 2.0.  If we added stuff, it would be harder to take out if we found a better way later.

Finally, I personally haven't noticed a case where I thought Walter was dead wrong and you et al are just right, as I've said above.  If you keep insisting that you have the unflawed, "intact" language, then I'm not going to be able to agree with you.  I've read the posts and I've made my decision.  Sorry!

With respect,
Charlie