December 29, 2008
Chad J wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> Hello Nick,
>>
> ...
>>> One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
>>> I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
>>> small business's wireless network with a wired one.
>>>
>>> And now I'll stop rambling ;)
>>>
>>
>> Wired is not necessarily backwards. :)  Despite the tangly lines, it's
>> just easier to keep secure.
>>
>> -JJR
>>
>>
> 
> Yeah.  It's a tradeoff.  I use both wired and wireless.  They complement
> each other nicely.  In an ideal setup both are available.
> 
> Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that
> wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a
> little angry.  I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just
> pity them their ignorance.  If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll
> calmly explain why they are wrong ;)

Why are they wrong? (I'm no expert.)

Andrei
December 29, 2008
Walter Bright wrote:
> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
> 
> .net
> jvm
> mac osx 32 bit intel
> mac osx 64 bit intel
> linux 64 bit
> windows 64 bit
> freebsd 32 bit
> netbsd 32 bit
> 
> other?

My choice, BY FAR, would be Mac OSX 32 bit.

When I started my current D project, six months ago or so, it looked like GDC mac support was on a steady, healthy incline, and that choosing D as a development platform would yield full mac compatibility in the very near future.

Supporting the mac platform is absolutely essential for my product, so without a viable D compiler, I'll have to rewrite a bunch of code in C, which would make me very sad.

The 64-bit win/lin/mac platforms would also be nice to have. But as long as every 64-bit OS provides legacy support for 32-bit apps, I consider a 64-bit D compiler pretty low priority, for the type of work I'm currently doing.

The bsd platform is completely off my radar screen, and given Walter's limited resources, I'd be disappointed to see these given much attention.

.NET and the JVM would be compelling for the marketing of D, making the language seem more mainstream and widely accessible. But I personally wouldn't find much use in them. The primary benefit of D, for me, is escaping from the confines of the VMs and being able to do system-level stuff.

I frequently develop for both the CLR and the JVM, but when I do so, I prefer C# and Java, respectively. I can't think of a single reason I'd ever elect to write D for a VM platform.

--benji

PS -- Game console platforms would be very very cool as well. For me, I'd be interested in the cell processor, for the PS3. HOWEVER, since the native PS3 SDK is proprietary (with a $10,000 licensing fee), and since linux on the PS3 uses artificially crippled hardware, my interest in developing anything on the PS3 is little more than casual curiosity.
December 29, 2008
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:gj9d1m$1boc$3@digitalmars.com...
> Chad J wrote:
>> John Reimer wrote:
>>> Hello Nick,
>>>
>> ...
>>>> One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better": I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her small business's wireless network with a wired one.
>>>>
>>>> And now I'll stop rambling ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wired is not necessarily backwards. :)  Despite the tangly lines, it's just easier to keep secure.
>>>
>>> -JJR
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah.  It's a tradeoff.  I use both wired and wireless.  They complement each other nicely.  In an ideal setup both are available.
>>
>> Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a little angry.  I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just pity them their ignorance.  If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll calmly explain why they are wrong ;)
>
> Why are they wrong? (I'm no expert.)
>

Wired connections are faster, more reliable, easier to configure and secure, often-times cheaper (even if you count the cost of cords, in many cases) and with the exception of certain modern laptops, easier to manually force a complete disconnect. The only drawback with wired is that you have to buy/run/connect a wire (which can be a legitimate concern in certain cases).


December 29, 2008
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:gj9cq1$1boc$1@digitalmars.com...
> Brian wrote:
>>> I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that.
>>
>> So does thunar :)
>
> Konqueror, too. But of course that would be too little a reason to make the switcharoo.
>

While the file rename thing is one of the nitpicky annoyances I have with the standard Windows file managers (though I never knew it annoyed me until Vista came along ;) ), I've have just as many nitpicky issues with OSX's Finder and all of the *n*x (Is that the politically-correct way to refer to Unix/Linux/BSD/etc? Some people can be real touchy about that) file managers I've tried. Not that I'm trying to single out any particular OS or file browser for ridicule, though.


December 29, 2008
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:gj9cq1$1boc$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Brian wrote:
>>>> I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus
>>>> suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that.
>>> So does thunar :)
>> Konqueror, too. But of course that would be too little a reason to make the switcharoo.
>>
> 
> While the file rename thing is one of the nitpicky annoyances I have with the standard Windows file managers (though I never knew it annoyed me until Vista came along ;) ), I've have just as many nitpicky issues with OSX's Finder and all of the *n*x (Is that the politically-correct way to refer to Unix/Linux/BSD/etc? Some people can be real touchy about that) file managers I've tried. Not that I'm trying to single out any particular OS or file browser for ridicule, though. 

Most people say *nix for Unix/Linux. BSD is Unix, so no need to specify that separately. You could single out Minix, though.

And I usually use bash as my file manager, but it isn't great for that. Decent, but not great.
December 29, 2008
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:gj9d1m$1boc$3@digitalmars.com...
>> Chad J wrote:
>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>>> Hello Nick,
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>>> One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
>>>>> I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
>>>>> small business's wireless network with a wired one.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now I'll stop rambling ;)
>>>>>
>>>> Wired is not necessarily backwards. :)  Despite the tangly lines, it's
>>>> just easier to keep secure.
>>>>
>>>> -JJR
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah.  It's a tradeoff.  I use both wired and wireless.  They complement
>>> each other nicely.  In an ideal setup both are available.
>>>
>>> Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that
>>> wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a
>>> little angry.  I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just
>>> pity them their ignorance.  If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll
>>> calmly explain why they are wrong ;)
>> Why are they wrong? (I'm no expert.)
>>
> 
> Wired connections are faster, more reliable, easier to configure and secure, often-times cheaper (even if you count the cost of cords, in many cases) and with the exception of certain modern laptops, easier to manually force a complete disconnect. The only drawback with wired is that you have to buy/run/connect a wire (which can be a legitimate concern in certain cases).
eg when your house contains crawling babies <g>

December 29, 2008
Christopher Wright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:gj9cq1$1boc$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> Brian wrote:
>>>>> I'm incredibly jealous of how Vista only highlights the filename (minus
>>>>> suffix) when you go to rename a file. I *really* want that.
>>>> So does thunar :)
>>> Konqueror, too. But of course that would be too little a reason to make the switcharoo.
>>>
>>
>> While the file rename thing is one of the nitpicky annoyances I have with the standard Windows file managers (though I never knew it annoyed me until Vista came along ;) ), I've have just as many nitpicky issues with OSX's Finder and all of the *n*x (Is that the politically-correct way to refer to Unix/Linux/BSD/etc? Some people can be real touchy about that) file managers I've tried. Not that I'm trying to single out any particular OS or file browser for ridicule, though. 
> 
> Most people say *nix for Unix/Linux. BSD is Unix, so no need to specify that separately. You could single out Minix, though.
> 
> And I usually use bash as my file manager, but it isn't great for that. Decent, but not great.

Command line is definitely more powerful than any GUI shell (I use and would recommend zsh) - of course after you took the time to learn it. It's like using a language versus navigating canned forms.

Andrei
December 29, 2008
Don wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:gj9d1m$1boc$3@digitalmars.com...
>>> Chad J wrote:
>>>> John Reimer wrote:
>>>>> Hello Nick,
>>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>> One other funny anecdote about "newer/trendier is not always better":
>>>>>> I've been recruited by a friend of my mom to replace/supplement her
>>>>>> small business's wireless network with a wired one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now I'll stop rambling ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wired is not necessarily backwards. :)  Despite the tangly lines, it's
>>>>> just easier to keep secure.
>>>>>
>>>>> -JJR
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah.  It's a tradeoff.  I use both wired and wireless.  They complement
>>>> each other nicely.  In an ideal setup both are available.
>>>>
>>>> Whenever I run into someone who says something to the effect that
>>>> wireless is superior and makes wired connections unnecessary, I get a
>>>> little angry.  I hold it back of course, and realize that I should just
>>>> pity them their ignorance.  If I have time and it's appropriate, I'll
>>>> calmly explain why they are wrong ;)
>>> Why are they wrong? (I'm no expert.)
>>>
>>
>> Wired connections are faster, more reliable, easier to configure and secure, often-times cheaper (even if you count the cost of cords, in many cases) and with the exception of certain modern laptops, easier to manually force a complete disconnect. The only drawback with wired is that you have to buy/run/connect a wire (which can be a legitimate concern in certain cases).
> eg when your house contains crawling babies <g>
> 

That pretty much settled the issue for me :o).

I'd add that wired is not the speed bottleneck when connecting from home to the Internet. The DSL/cable connections go well below wireless' 54 Mbps. That being said, whenever I want to transfer some large amounts of data across my home computers, I invariably give up wireless in frustration and end up rummaging through my drawer for a cable.


Andrei
December 29, 2008
I second this.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gj1olu$1390$1@digitalmars.com...
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:gj0qht$2lc1$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
>>>
>>> .net
>>> jvm
>>> mac osx 32 bit intel
>>> mac osx 64 bit intel
>>> linux 64 bit
>>> windows 64 bit
>>> freebsd 32 bit
>>> netbsd 32 bit
>>>
>>> other?
>>
>> - ARM7/ARM9
>> - Other misc microcontrollers, like Parallax's Propeller
>> - Mac osx 32 bit intel
>> - *maybe* bsd 32-bit, .net and jvm (and with .net and jvm I'd want to
>> still be able to use tango and phobos, and not be forced to switch to the
>> .net and jvm standard libs)
> 
> To elaborate:
> 
> 1. A "systems language" that doesn't compile to any embedded microcontroller seems more than a little bit silly to me. (Sad as it is to say, I don't think GDC counts anymore.)
> 
> 2. I have absolutely zero interest in 64-bit. To the people annoyed at the limitations of the 32-bit address space: What in the world are you working on? Non-linear video editors and 3D modeling packages?
> 
> I should also add near the top of my list, "the CPUs of all major game consoles". I think console game programmers are very much in need of a language that doesn't suck as horribly as C++, and D is the only one out there that doesn't contain fundamental deal-breakers for modern console game dev.

December 30, 2008
Walter Bright wrote:

> What platforms for dmd would you be most interested in using?
> 
> .net
> jvm
> mac osx 32 bit intel
> mac osx 64 bit intel
> linux 64 bit
> windows 64 bit
> freebsd 32 bit
> netbsd 32 bit
> 
> other?

Mac OS X 32-bit Intel

Support for 64-bit and Vector would be "nice" across the board.
But DMD2 support for Mac OS X 10.4-10.6 would be my preference.

--anders
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home