On 28 May 2015 at 19:23, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 28/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Chris wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 19:35:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:23:16 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>>>
>>>> Only when I can sell D to customers that put money into this kind of stuff
>>>
>>>
>>> if customers are deciding which technologies to use... ok then, they can do their work without my help, 'cause they are so knowledgeable.
>>
>>
>> It's funny that people spend millions on technologies that makes mediocre or crap languages better, but they would never invest in something like D, because they dread the investment. I think it's because D doesn't have a price tag attached to it. "If it's for free, it must be sh*t", I often hear people say. Maybe we should have a D Enterprise Edition (DEE) and sell it for $1,000. Believe me, people would take to it like ducks take to water.
>
>
> Or we put together a D consultancy firm, perhaps as part of D's future foundation?
>
> Starting at e.g. bug fixes ext. with price tag ranges on them. Perhaps even a price tag on working on DIP's.

I would put my money on the table.

On 31/05/2015 3:52 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 19:23, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 28/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Chris wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 19:35:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:23:16 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Only when I can sell D to customers that put money into this kind of
>>>>> stuff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if customers are deciding which technologies to use... ok then, they can
>>>> do their work without my help, 'cause they are so knowledgeable.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's funny that people spend millions on technologies that makes
>>> mediocre or crap languages better, but they would never invest in
>>> something like D, because they dread the investment. I think it's
>>> because D doesn't have a price tag attached to it. "If it's for free, it
>>> must be sh*t", I often hear people say. Maybe we should have a D
>>> Enterprise Edition (DEE) and sell it for $1,000. Believe me, people
>>> would take to it like ducks take to water.
>>
>>
>> Or we put together a D consultancy firm, perhaps as part of D's future
>> foundation?
>>
>> Starting at e.g. bug fixes ext. with price tag ranges on them.
>> Perhaps even a price tag on working on DIP's.
>
> I would put my money on the table.

Now we just need either Walter or Andrei to weigh in on this idea.
And perhaps somebody willing to step up and lead this.

Laeeth Isharc perhaps? As I know he is interested in this area already and has the skills to back it up.

On 5/24/2015 9:03 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/24/15 1:20 AM, weaselcat wrote:
>> IMO I think the worst thing C++ has done is blatantly ignore features
>> that have been 'killer' in D(see: the reaction to the static_if proposal)
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4461.html -- Andrei

The proposal:

Proposal: static if declaration
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3329.pdf

The rebuttal:

"Static If" Considered
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3613.pdf

Quoted from the rebuttal:

> The static if feature recently proposed for C++ [1, 2] is fundamentally flawed,
> and its adoption would be a disaster for the language. The feature provides a
> single syntax with three distinct semantics, depending on the context of use.
> The primary mechanism of these semantics is to avoid parsing in branches not
> taken. This will make programs harder to read, understand, maintain, and
> debug. It would also impede and possibly prevent the future development of
> other language features, such as concepts. Furthermore, the adoption of this
> feature would seriously compromise our ability to produce AST- based tools
> for C++, and therefore put C++ at a further disadvantage compared to other
> modern languages vis a vis tool support. It would make C++ a lower-level
> language.

On 5/30/15 8:55 PM, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 3:52 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 28 May 2015 at 19:23, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
>> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/05/2015 8:55 p.m., Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 at 19:35:35 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:23:16 +0000, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Only when I can sell D to customers that put money into this kind of
>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> if customers are deciding which technologies to use... ok then,
>>>>> they can
>>>>> do their work without my help, 'cause they are so knowledgeable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's funny that people spend millions on technologies that makes
>>>> mediocre or crap languages better, but they would never invest in
>>>> something like D, because they dread the investment. I think it's
>>>> because D doesn't have a price tag attached to it. "If it's for
>>>> free, it
>>>> must be sh*t", I often hear people say. Maybe we should have a D
>>>> Enterprise Edition (DEE) and sell it for $1,000. Believe me, people
>>>> would take to it like ducks take to water.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or we put together a D consultancy firm, perhaps as part of D's future
>>> foundation?
>>>
>>> Starting at e.g. bug fixes ext. with price tag ranges on them.
>>> Perhaps even a price tag on working on DIP's.
>>
>> I would put my money on the table.
>
> Now we just need either Walter or Andrei to weigh in on this idea.
> And perhaps somebody willing to step up and lead this.

Speaking only for myself, I'll look into how the foundation can facilitate such paid consultancy. (Probably poorly if it's non-profit.) The practical issue I see is with the geographical distribution of participants. Probably a strong entrepreneur could overcome these issues. -- Andrei

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 at 04:18:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Furthermore, the adoption of this
>> feature would seriously compromise our ability to produce AST- based tools
>> for C++, and therefore put C++ at a further disadvantage compared to other
>> modern languages vis a vis tool support.

I find it hilarious that they can say that in a language that needs a preprocessor. Macros (and mixins) destroy AST-based tools, not things like "static if" that are right there in the AST.

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 at 06:03:36 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
> I find it hilarious that they can say that in a language that needs a preprocessor. Macros (and mixins) destroy AST-based tools, not things like "static if" that are right there in the AST.

That's not right. "static if" is just as bad as macros and affects partial evaluation. Besides I think C++ is moving away from macros, and I believe it is a stated goal for BS to do so. I don't use macros in C++ anymore.

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 at 06:03:36 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 May 2015 at 04:18:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Furthermore, the adoption of this
>>> feature would seriously compromise our ability to produce AST- based tools
>>> for C++, and therefore put C++ at a further disadvantage compared to other
>>> modern languages vis a vis tool support.
>
> I find it hilarious that they can say that in a language that needs a preprocessor. Macros (and mixins) destroy AST-based tools, not things like "static if" that are right there in the AST.

Using macros in C++ is considered bad style and a sign of someone sticking to Cisms.

With meta-programming, templates, strong enums, const, constexpr and inline there are very few valid reasons to use macros other than C copy-paste compatibility.

However, C++ seems to be really into the route of library only language if we look at how it is available on mobile OS, only as complement to the main languages, not as the language under the spotlight.

Even on WinRT, C++/CX doesn't seem to get many followers outside the game developers world. To the point that Windows 10 will also expose DirectX as WinRT components (on 8.x it is only directly available to C++).


--
Paulo

While C++ programmers should try and avoid the preprocessor as much as possible, sometimes it just isn't possible to do so. There's just no other way to generate code sometimes. I know, I've tried.

Atila

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 at 07:54:29 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 May 2015 at 06:03:36 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
>> On Sunday, 31 May 2015 at 04:18:32 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> Furthermore, the adoption of this
>>>> feature would seriously compromise our ability to produce AST- based tools
>>>> for C++, and therefore put C++ at a further disadvantage compared to other
>>>> modern languages vis a vis tool support.
>>
>> I find it hilarious that they can say that in a language that needs a preprocessor. Macros (and mixins) destroy AST-based tools, not things like "static if" that are right there in the AST.
>
> Using macros in C++ is considered bad style and a sign of someone sticking to Cisms.
>
> With meta-programming, templates, strong enums, const, constexpr and inline there are very few valid reasons to use macros other than C copy-paste compatibility.
>
> However, C++ seems to be really into the route of library only language if we look at how it is available on mobile OS, only as complement to the main languages, not as the language under the spotlight.
>
> Even on WinRT, C++/CX doesn't seem to get many followers outside the game developers world. To the point that Windows 10 will also expose DirectX as WinRT components (on 8.x it is only directly available to C++).
>
>
> --
> Paulo

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 at 08:51:00 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> While C++ programmers should try and avoid the preprocessor as much as possible, sometimes it just isn't possible to do so. There's just no other way to generate code sometimes. I know, I've tried.
>
> Atila
>

Yes, there is. By using an external tool like in other languages. :)

However I do agree that for small things, it doesn't make sense to add an external dependency to the build.

--
Paulo

On Sunday, 31 May 2015 at 07:54:29 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> However, C++ seems to be really into the route of library only language if we look at how it is available on mobile OS, only as complement to the main languages, not as the language under the spotlight.
>
> Even on WinRT, C++/CX doesn't seem to get many followers outside the game developers world. To the point that Windows 10 will also expose DirectX as WinRT components (on 8.x it is only directly available to C++).

You seem to dismiss game development as some niche, when it is one of the main killer apps driving the mobile boom.  Around 80% of the top paid apps on iOS and Android are games:

https://www.appannie.com/apps/google-play/top/united-states/

Most mobile games are written in C/C++/OpenGL, to the point where google even makes their Play Games Services APIs available as C++ headers, which they don't do for most of the rest of their Java-only APIs:

https://developers.google.com/games/services/cpp/gettingStartedAndroid

As for WinRT, almost nobody uses Windows Phone and Windows 8 was a huge bust, especially Modern apps, so that's neither here nor there.

You're right that google keeps pushing Java into the spotlight, but it is native development that is actually doing well, pushing Java back into library mode for google's Java-only APIs.  Perhaps that's why they compile Java Ahead-Of-Time since the recent Lollipop release. :)