View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
January 09, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
On 1/9/2012 11:45 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Please fix the wikipedia entry!
>
> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?

Yes, but 2001 for D1.
January 09, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
On Monday, January 09, 2012 21:29:01 Manfred Nowak wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > easily gives the mistaken impression that we're doing a bad
> > job
> 
> ... but only for easy people.
> 
> In addition:
> 
> a:without indication of paid time there isn't a "job";
> b:without specifying the number of full-time service providers, there
> isn't a "we"

Really? None of Merriam Webster's definitions for job involve being paid 
(though obviously, you _can_ be paid to do a job - it just isn't required for 
it to be a job): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/job

And since there is a group of us working on D, there is most definitely a we.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here though.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 09, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
On 9 January 2012 21:29, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2012 11:45 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> Please fix the wikipedia entry!
>>
>>
>> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?
>
>
> Yes, but 2001 for D1.

[citation needed]

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
January 10, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:

> On 9 January 2012 21:29, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2012 11:45 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Please fix the wikipedia entry!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, but 2001 for D1.
> 
> [citation needed]

How about the changelog?  Or does it have to be an actual article.  Maybe Walter's written something at DDJ?
January 10, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> On Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37:50 Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 1/9/2012 10:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > I suspect that part of the problem is that Wikipedia lists D as
> > > appearing in 1999. And, of course, since D2 didn't start until 2007,
> > > saying that D has been around since 1999 easily gives the mistaken
> > > impression that we're doing a bad job, since D _still_ isn't complete
> > > and fully stable.
> > 
> > Please fix the wikipedia entry!
> 
> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

All of the above.  More information there is better than trying to pick a 
tiny part of it.
January 10, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> Really?
"A job is a regular activity performed in exchange for payment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job, cited 01/10/2012
Your citation defines the religious figure.

> And since there is a group of us working on D, there is most
> definitely a we. 
What is a "group", what is "working" and if there is a "we", who 
belongs to the "others"? 

> I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here though.
Limit yourself only by scales, which you yourself have chosen.

-manfred
January 10, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 01:55:23 Manfred Nowak wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Really?
> 
> "A job is a regular activity performed in exchange for payment."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job, cited 01/10/2012
> Your citation defines the religious figure.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/job[1]

For some reason, my browser didn't update the URL when clicking on the noun 
non-pronoun version of the word. There is _zero_ mention of compensation in 
the dictionary definition. Yes, one's employment is typically referred to as 
one's job (which is likely why Wikipedia says what it does), but it doesn't 
_have_ to refer to one's employment. Wikipedia is giving an overly narrow 
definition.

> > And since there is a group of us working on D, there is most
> > definitely a we.
> 
> What is a "group", what is "working" and if there is a "we", who
> belongs to the "others"?
> 
> > I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here though.
> 
> Limit yourself only by scales, which you yourself have chosen.

I still don't see why any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. We're 
talking about the state of D and how it's perceived by those outside of the D 
community. It looks to me like you're just trying to be a troll.

- Jonathan M Davis
January 10, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> It looks to me like you're just trying to be a troll.
Nice. 

> how it's perceived by those outside of the D community.
It looks to me like they are all trolls.

-manfred
January 10, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
On Tuesday, 10 January 2012 at 00:04:31 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> On 9 January 2012 21:29, Walter Bright 
>> <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2012 11:45 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please fix the wikipedia entry!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, but 2001 for D1.
>> 
>> [citation needed]
>
> How about the changelog?  Or does it have to be an actual 
> article.  Maybe Walter's written something at DDJ?

D1 changelog starts with 1.001, 2007-01-23
January 10, 2012
Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum
On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 19:46:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37:50 Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 1/9/2012 10:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> > I suspect that part of the problem is that Wikipedia lists D 
>> > as
>> > appearing in 1999. And, of course, since D2 didn't start 
>> > until 2007,
>> > saying that D has been around since 1999 easily gives the 
>> > mistaken
>> > impression that we're doing a bad job, since D _still_ isn't 
>> > complete
>> > and fully stable.
>> 
>> Please fix the wikipedia entry!
>
> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Other languages have just 1 date. I think wikipedia's editors 
would resist if D will be different.

If we want to do so, there should be convincing rationale in 
entry source. Like comment for file extensions (see "file_ext" 
here 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D_(programming_language)&action=edit 
)
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home