Neil Vice Wrote:

> "Ty Tower" <tytower@hotmail.com.au> wrote in message news:fr2r6r$1brv$1@digitalmars.com...
> > Gregor Richards Wrote:
> > but he's not too smart ,I see why the problems and why so few users
> >
> > Keep covering your arse son and some fools will believe you and persevere. 100 or so users in 4 years -not doing too well son
> 
> I must admit I have been very frustrated with D at times as I expected too much of an alpha version (D2 is still considered alpha yes?) that I understand now is still under heavy development and I have been very pleased by the changes I've seen particularly in 2.011 and 2.012. I have found myself using D after having been disappointed by many other languages, fussy as I am.
> 
> Given the amount of criticism you appear to have of D, related projects and the people involved I have to ask, why then are you using it?

Thats a fair question
I'm not using it . I hav'nt been able to use it as I have not been satisfied with the stability of what I have downloaded.
I hav'nt used 2.xx yet I'm still on 1.XX
So I am experimenting with "D" . In fact I am now looking and learning because I have wasted so much time trying to get it to a useable state I will now become an ardent critic of "D" in "C" forums-good critics know thei subject matter

Note that the support for Windows users is probably a lot better as the distributed .exe files have to be right . I suspect the problem is with Linux/Unix where the download must be compiled and there are so few user in this category that no one has looked at this fully yet .

I originally looked at "D" and thought it was worth knowing about . Getting into it I intended to write a program which needed SWT or something like it . If you look there is nothing stable for Unix so I went to dwt which is "alpha".

Well since then - what a mess. Thats why I am critical and the Tango /Phobos calamity is simply stupid in its present form for Linux

Honestly wherever I go in "D" I find problems . That means it comes from the heads of the organisation. They are not going to be Google type millionaires I can tell you.
Cheers

Reply to ty,

>I suspect the problem is
> with Linux/Unix where the download must be compiled and there are so
> few user in this category that no one has looked at this fully yet .
> 

DMD works out of the box on every linux box I've tried. Might you be talking about DSSS? It is developed on linux IIRC. Or are you talking about somthing else?

> 
>  They are not going to be Google type millionaires I can tell you.
> 

Last time I check, they didn't want to be either.

"Ty Tower" <tytower@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> Thats a fair question
> I'm not using it . I hav'nt been able to use it as I have not been
> satisfied with the stability of what I have downloaded.
> I hav'nt used 2.xx yet I'm still on 1.XX
> So I am experimenting with "D" . In fact I am now looking and learning
> because I have wasted so much time trying to get it to a useable state I
> will now become an ardent critic of "D" in "C" forums-good critics know
> thei subject matter

I don't recall you having any gripes with D as a programming language. Your issues seem to be with 3rd-party open-source libraries and tools contributed by the D community. Allow me to attempt to address them individually.

Firstly, I also dislike DSSS and rebuild. I don't recall particular criticisms with them and I certainly feel no ill will towards the developers =) However, particularly the fact that rebuild is/was slow to support significant front-end changes in D2 I couldn't wait for it to catch up. What do you use to build C code? Make? Make will work just fine with D as well... my preference happens to be 'cook' but either way - a criticism of rebuild is not a criticism of D any more than a criticism of Make is a criticism of C.

As for DWT, a quick visit to the DSource DWT site would indicate that the project is still under development. Given this, should you not expect some issues? Having said that, as an experiment I am very tempted to install linux (Debian being my distribution of choice) and attempt to get the DWT examples working to see whether your outrage is justified.

> Note that the support for Windows users is probably a lot better as the distributed .exe files have to be right . I suspect the problem is with Linux/Unix where the download must be compiled and there are so few user in this category that no one has looked at this fully yet .

It would greatly surprise me if there were not many linux D users. I would have expected linux users to be more willing to "experiment" with a new language like D as a rule... In my experience, doing the same thing under Windows and linux, where a tool is available under Windows to perform the task, usually requires a bit more effort/patience under linux. That's not to say that the result isn't worth the wait, but the very fact that compilation is often required means that there is more room for error. How long have you been a linux user? I'd be surprised if you hadn't experienced similar difficulties using applications other than DMD.

> I originally looked at "D" and thought it was worth knowing about . Getting into it I intended to write a program which needed SWT or something like it . If you look there is nothing stable for Unix so I went to dwt which is "alpha".

And what windowing toolkit comes out-of-the-box with C exactly? I'm not saying that they don't exist... but were they written in the 70s by Ritchie et. al.? These things take time and are not part of the core language by any means. Certainly if you require RAD GUI tools D may not be the language for you... at least perhaps not yet. Having said that I would also have thought that C would have been a poor choice, prefering C# or Java perhaps.

I am personally using D to write a game engine (in theory =P) and short of the sort of bugs and const design issues discussed in this NG I have been very happy with the language. I am a C++ fan and have been impressed that D has provided the power of C++ without the redundancy of syntax (header files) and added many useful modern programming tools. I happen to dislike both standard libraries and personally think it was a poor choice on the part of the Tango developers to break compatibility with Phobos (though this may have been resolved recently?) but I'm a reinvent-the-wheel kind of a guy anyway and D has allowed me to do so in very elegant ways IMHO.

> Well since then - what a mess. Thats why I am critical and the Tango /Phobos calamity is simply stupid in its present form for Linux
>
> Honestly wherever I go in "D" I find problems . That means it comes from the heads of the organisation. They are not going to be Google type millionaires I can tell you.

Perhaps your Google comment was simply sarcasm and nothing more, however as BCS says, profit is not the motivation behind D. The very fact that such an excellent tool has been developed non-commercially by what I understand to be a rather small group of people is a testament to the Walter's (and others') skill and dedication and I am personally very grateful.

Yes there is much room for improvement, but show me another language with the first compiler released last year which meets your criterea? You are clearly expecting D to be something it's not, however that's not to say that the problems you have encountered are insurmountable. Each tool is not suited to every task, but that doesn't make them lesser tools.

As far as your comments regarding "good critics" go, I'm not sure that you can be in a position to be critical until you have at least got something working. When I first used D I was critical of some of the design decisions in the language to the point that I would rant at coworkers in frustration =) Since then however, I have read excellent explanations behind these decisions on this very NG and have learned the error of my ways. The very fact that some clearly intelligent, experienced developers frequent this forum and have positive things to say about D suggests to me that something must be being done right - and I for one am keen to learn more.

I hope you can find D more useful on another project. Having said that, if you are still interested in working with DWT under linux, I could be convinced to attempt it myself and detail my results.

Neil

Ty Tower wrote:
> I will now become an ardent critic of "D" in "C" forums

Well good luck with that.

If you treat the people on other programming forums with the same disrespect and immaturity you've repeatedly demonstrated here I can't imagine you'll be made welcome for very long.

> Honestly wherever I go in "D" I find problems. 

People will find problems anywhere if they look hard enough and it seems as though you've come here with that express intention.

I'm a comparative newbie to compiled languages and if I can start working with D quickly and enjoying every minute of it then anyone should be able to, especially someone like you who professes to have experience with C.

> That means it comes from the heads of the organisation.

You make it sound like D was conceived and developed by a corporate behemoth like Microsoft or Sun. D was conceived by one man, Walter Bright, and developed by him and a few others with extensive input and feedback from a dynamic, supportive and growing user community. I'm sorry you cannot see that and do not want to be a part of the magic.

Neil Vice Wrote:

> "Ty Tower" <tytower@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> > Thats a fair question
> > I'm not using it . I hav'nt been able to use it as I have not been
> > satisfied with the stability of what I have downloaded.
> > I hav'nt used 2.xx yet I'm still on 1.XX
> > So I am experimenting with "D" . In fact I am now looking and learning
> > because I have wasted so much time trying to get it to a useable state I
> > will now become an ardent critic of "D" in "C" forums-good critics know
> > thei subject matter
> 
> I don't recall you having any gripes with D as a programming language. Your issues seem to be with 3rd-party open-source libraries and tools contributed by the D community. Allow me to attempt to address them individually.
> 
> Firstly, I also dislike DSSS and rebuild. I don't recall particular criticisms with them and I certainly feel no ill will towards the developers =) However, particularly the fact that rebuild is/was slow to support significant front-end changes in D2 I couldn't wait for it to catch up. What do you use to build C code? Make? Make will work just fine with D as well... my preference happens to be 'cook' but either way - a criticism of rebuild is not a criticism of D any more than a criticism of Make is a criticism of C.
> 
> As for DWT, a quick visit to the DSource DWT site would indicate that the project is still under development. Given this, should you not expect some issues? Having said that, as an experiment I am very tempted to install linux (Debian being my distribution of choice) and attempt to get the DWT examples working to see whether your outrage is justified.
> 
> > Note that the support for Windows users is probably a lot better as the distributed .exe files have to be right . I suspect the problem is with Linux/Unix where the download must be compiled and there are so few user in this category that no one has looked at this fully yet .
> 
> It would greatly surprise me if there were not many linux D users. I would have expected linux users to be more willing to "experiment" with a new language like D as a rule... In my experience, doing the same thing under Windows and linux, where a tool is available under Windows to perform the task, usually requires a bit more effort/patience under linux. That's not to say that the result isn't worth the wait, but the very fact that compilation is often required means that there is more room for error. How long have you been a linux user? I'd be surprised if you hadn't experienced similar difficulties using applications other than DMD.
> 
> > I originally looked at "D" and thought it was worth knowing about . Getting into it I intended to write a program which needed SWT or something like it . If you look there is nothing stable for Unix so I went to dwt which is "alpha".
> 
> And what windowing toolkit comes out-of-the-box with C exactly? I'm not saying that they don't exist... but were they written in the 70s by Ritchie et. al.? These things take time and are not part of the core language by any means. Certainly if you require RAD GUI tools D may not be the language for you... at least perhaps not yet. Having said that I would also have thought that C would have been a poor choice, prefering C# or Java perhaps.
> 
> I am personally using D to write a game engine (in theory =P) and short of the sort of bugs and const design issues discussed in this NG I have been very happy with the language. I am a C++ fan and have been impressed that D has provided the power of C++ without the redundancy of syntax (header files) and added many useful modern programming tools. I happen to dislike both standard libraries and personally think it was a poor choice on the part of the Tango developers to break compatibility with Phobos (though this may have been resolved recently?) but I'm a reinvent-the-wheel kind of a guy anyway and D has allowed me to do so in very elegant ways IMHO.
> 
> > Well since then - what a mess. Thats why I am critical and the Tango /Phobos calamity is simply stupid in its present form for Linux
> >
> > Honestly wherever I go in "D" I find problems . That means it comes from the heads of the organisation. They are not going to be Google type millionaires I can tell you.
> 
> Perhaps your Google comment was simply sarcasm and nothing more, however as BCS says, profit is not the motivation behind D. The very fact that such an excellent tool has been developed non-commercially by what I understand to be a rather small group of people is a testament to the Walter's (and others') skill and dedication and I am personally very grateful.
> 
> Yes there is much room for improvement, but show me another language with the first compiler released last year which meets your criterea? You are clearly expecting D to be something it's not, however that's not to say that the problems you have encountered are insurmountable. Each tool is not suited to every task, but that doesn't make them lesser tools.
> 
> As far as your comments regarding "good critics" go, I'm not sure that you can be in a position to be critical until you have at least got something working. When I first used D I was critical of some of the design decisions in the language to the point that I would rant at coworkers in frustration =) Since then however, I have read excellent explanations behind these decisions on this very NG and have learned the error of my ways. The very fact that some clearly intelligent, experienced developers frequent this forum and have positive things to say about D suggests to me that something must be being done right - and I for one am keen to learn more.
> 
> I hope you can find D more useful on another project. Having said that, if you are still interested in working with DWT under linux, I could be convinced to attempt it myself and detail my results.
> 
> Neil
> 


Interesting read Neil and nothing there I could not agree with -Thanks
I have dwt working and am experimenting -Its worth the look and I do like the "D"  language itself. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say but isn't dmd just a wrapped up gcc?
Anyway no matter , its rebuild wrapped as dsss thats giving me problems and getting good installation notes from digitalmars and tango. All of D Tango Phobos dwt was new for me a month ago and the old configure ,make ,make install always worked for me . I must have had failures but only back at least 5 years ago
Cheers

Brian Hay Wrote:

> Ty Tower wrote:
> > I will now become an ardent critic of "D" in "C" forums
> 
> Well good luck with that.
> 
> If you treat the people on other programming forums with the same disrespect and immaturity you've repeatedly demonstrated here I can't imagine you'll be made welcome for very long.
> 
> > Honestly wherever I go in "D" I find problems.
> 
> People will find problems anywhere if they look hard enough and it seems as though you've come here with that express intention.
> 
> I'm a comparative newbie to compiled languages and if I can start working with D quickly and enjoying every minute of it then anyone should be able to, especially someone like you who professes to have experience with C.
> 
> > That means it comes from the heads of the organisation.
> 
> You make it sound like D was conceived and developed by a corporate behemoth like Microsoft or Sun. D was conceived by one man, Walter Bright, and developed by him and a few others with extensive input and feedback from a dynamic, supportive and growing user community. I'm sorry you cannot see that and do not want to be a part of the magic.


Well good luck with that.

"Ty Tower" <tytower@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> Interesting read Neil and nothing there I could not agree with -Thanks

I am pleased to hear that.

> I have dwt working and am experimenting -Its worth the look and I do like the "D"  language itself.

Good to hear things are working in the end.

> I'm not knowledgeable enough to say but isn't dmd just a wrapped up gcc?

Well, depending on exactly what you mean I suggest that that is not the case at all. DMD (and associated OPTLINK) as I understand it have been written from scratch by Walter, at least in part based on his previous work on C and C++ compilers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bright

Both being compilers, GCC (or more correctly GDC in the case of D) and DMD certainly perform the same task but the code is completely independant, with the exception of the shared front-end in the case of GDC - where GDC has borrowed from DMD not the other way around.

> Anyway no matter , its rebuild wrapped as dsss thats giving me problems and getting good installation notes from digitalmars and tango. All of D Tango Phobos dwt was new for me a month ago and the old configure ,make ,make install always worked for me . I must have had failures but only back at least 5 years ago

I admit I haven't attempted to build anyone elses code (e.g. the DWT examples) but except for a couple of snags I haven't had much issue building my own. As far as installation goes, I had a couple of false starts but once I realised you can just dump the "dm" and "dmd" directories under e.g. /usr and just put /usr/dmd/bin in your PATH then I have had no troubles at all. Again I haven't worked with Tango though.

As I indicated previously, I had some issues with rebuild and dsss. I recall now that I had some issues with files not being rebuilt unless I explicitly "touch"ed them or something and as such went back to 'make' and 'cook' - just my personal preference I think. I did have some linking issues where DMD didn't generate the odd symbol if I compiled all source files in one build, rather than seperate builds with -c then a seperate linking step - presumably a compiler bug - but now I've got my own build environment set-up I can get on with coding in D =)