View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
March 10, 2012
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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
Re: Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity)
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
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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
Re: Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity)
"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
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
"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
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
"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
Re: Roadmap (was Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity)
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
Re: Breaking backwards compatiblity
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.
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home