March 10, 2012
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:49:22 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Yikes. That would *not* sit well with me. Before my last upgrade, my PC was at least 10 years old. (And the upgrade before that was at least 5 years prior.) Last year I finally replaced my 10 y.o. PC with a brand new AMD hexacore system. The plan being to not upgrade for at least the next 10 years, preferably more. :-)

LOL. I'm the complete opposite. I seem to end up upgrading my computer every 2 or 3 years. I wouldn't be able to stand being on an older computer that long. I'm constantly annoyed by how slow my computer is no matter how new it is. Of course, I do tend to stress my machine quite a lot by having a ton of stuff open all the time and doing CPU-intensive stuff like transcoding video, and how you use your computer is a definite factor in how much value there is in upgrading.

- Jonathan M Davis
March 10, 2012
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...]
> writefln is still there with the same old functionality (which is good, it *is* a good function). It's just that writeln has been added and just happens to be better in every way for the majority of use-cases.
[...]

Strange, I still find myself using writef/writefln very frequently. When you want formatting in your output, printf specs are just sooo convenient.  But perhaps it's just a symptom of my having just emerged from the C/C++ world.  :-)


T

-- 
First Rule of History: History doesn't repeat itself -- historians merely repeat each other.
March 10, 2012
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 20:48:05 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> No one forces you to upgrade.

What, you've never had the Apple police come to your door and force a new computer on you at gunpoint? ;)

- Jonathan M Davis
March 10, 2012
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:39:54AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 11:02 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >Speaking of which, how's our progress on that front? What are the major roadblocks still facing us?
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED

Looks quite promising to me. Can we expect dmd 2.060 Real Soon Now(tm)?
:-)


T

-- 
"Uhh, I'm still not here." -- KD, while "away" on ICQ.
March 10, 2012
On Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:56:03 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...]
> 
> > writefln is still there with the same old functionality (which is good, it *is* a good function). It's just that writeln has been added and just happens to be better in every way for the majority of use-cases.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Strange, I still find myself using writef/writefln very frequently. When you want formatting in your output, printf specs are just sooo convenient.  But perhaps it's just a symptom of my having just emerged from the C/C++ world.  :-)

It's a question of what you're printing out. Is it more typical to write a string out without needing to construct it from some set of arguments, or is it more common to have to print a string that you've constructed from a set of arguments? It all depends on your code. There's no question that writef and writefln are useful. It's just a matter of what _your_ use cases are which determines whether you use writeln or writefln more.

- Jonathan M Davis
March 10, 2012
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.431.1331409456.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:39:54AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 11:02 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> >Speaking of which, how's our progress on that front? What are the major roadblocks still facing us?
>>
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
>
> Looks quite promising to me. Can we expect dmd 2.060 Real Soon Now(tm)?
> :-)
>

No. Unfortnately, 2.059 will have to come first. ;)


March 10, 2012
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.429.1331409266.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:31:53PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: [...]
>> writefln is still there with the same old functionality (which is good, it *is* a good function). It's just that writeln has been added and just happens to be better in every way for the majority of use-cases.
> [...]
>
> Strange, I still find myself using writef/writefln very frequently. When you want formatting in your output, printf specs are just sooo convenient.  But perhaps it's just a symptom of my having just emerged from the C/C++ world.  :-)
>

They are nice, but I've found that in most of my cases, the non-formatted version is all I usually need. It's great though that the formatted ones are there for the cases where I do need them.


March 10, 2012
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.427.1331409078.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:27:20PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tfdzpwcijnavdalmnzit@forum.dlang.org...
>> > On Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 18:57:10 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> >> It can hardly be called a success technology-wise.
>> >
>> > It is significantly ahead of its competition at the time.
>>
>> And it was a big advancement over 3.1. Pre-emptive multitasking anyone?
> [...]
>
> I thought the Unix world has had that years before Windows.

I just meant versus 3.1. I wouldn't know about Unix.

> But not in the consumer PC market, I suppose.
>

I'm not sure I'd say there was a consumer-level Unix at all back then.



March 10, 2012
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 02:59:28PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.431.1331409456.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:39:54AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> >> On 3/10/2012 11:02 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >> >Speaking of which, how's our progress on that front? What are the major roadblocks still facing us?
> >>
> >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
> >
> > Looks quite promising to me. Can we expect dmd 2.060 Real Soon Now(tm)?
> > :-)
> >
> 
> No. Unfortnately, 2.059 will have to come first. ;)
[...]

Argh! I didn't realize dmd bumped its version in git immediately after a release, rather than before. At my day job, we do it the other way round (make a bunch of changes, test it, then bump the version once we decide it's ready to ship).


T

-- 
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else. -- despair.com
March 10, 2012
On 03/09/2012 11:40 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>
> On Windows though, even if you relied on bugs twenty
> years ago, they bend over backward to keep your app
> functioning.

They stopped doing that a long time ago. There's a well-known blog article about this:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

Some apps and hardware had trouble running on XP, and Vista took this to all new levels -- one of the reasons it got so much bad press.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home