On 25.09.2013 19:36, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 24/09/2013 19:19, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
>>>> the result can be seen here:
>>>> http://rainers.github.io/visuald/download.html
>>>>
>>>> Should we add links to Mono-D and DDT aswell?
>>>
>>> I think so.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, will add these. Bruno and Alex, is it ok for you? What are the
>> appropriate links? Are there any direct download links?
>
> There are no direct downloads for DDT. The closest starting point
> is: http://code.google.com/p/ddt/wiki/Installation

Hmm, it seems both DDT and Mono-D don't fit too well for the download
page where there are actually only file download links. I guess it might be better if they are listed with installation procedures on a sub page for "Downloads & Tools". (I just notice that this is what the "IDEs" link does, though it links to the wiki which give the impression of an external site.)

>
> I'm ok with links being added, although I'm not sure what all this
> would help to achieve. It partially duplicates the
> http://wiki.dlang.org/IDEs wiki entry, which is linked in the
> downloads navigation sidebar.

> BTW that sub-sidebar could use a cleanup as well, the whole thing is a
> bit disjoint.
>

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I notice the navigation looks slightly different on almost every page and a lot of the stuff linked to is pretty dated.

On 26/09/2013 08:45, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
>> I'm ok with links being added, although I'm not sure what all this
>> would help to achieve. It partially duplicates the
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/IDEs wiki entry, which is linked in the
>> downloads navigation sidebar.
>
>  > BTW that sub-sidebar could use a cleanup as well, the whole thing is a
>> bit disjoint.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I notice the navigation looks
> slightly different on almost every page and a lot of the stuff linked to
> is pretty dated.

I meant the sub-bar that appears under Downloads & Tools, on the downloads page. The one with "Linux notes | Windows notes | ... | Editors | IDEs".

If it was up to me, I'd cleanup so that that sub-navigation bar would point only to subsections of the Downloads main page (using HTML anchors), instead of directly linking to other pages. And I would rework the sections so that only the most relevant downloads and tools would have their own sections (DMD, GDC, LDC, Editors, IDEs, DMD v1). Everything else go to a Other Tools sections at the end (or not be there at all, directly linked. Do we really need links to Empire on the main download page? Or even to DMC or Optlink documentation?)
But I guess such task is another story..

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer

On 24.09.2013 21:31, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 9/24/13 11:19 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24.09.2013 19:16, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 9/22/13 7:05 AM, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
>>
>> Do you mean that I should add the documentation to the dlang.org
>> repository? It's currently part of the visuald repository, and it could
>> also be referred to by the makefile in dlang.org, but that might mean
>> that people building that will also have to clone the visuald repository.
>
> I preapprove any pages that refer exclusively to Visual D in the
> dlang.org repo. I trust you to design and write them within the site
> look and feel, and to organize them in directories appropriately.
>

Sorry for the silence, I've been traveling for the last week. Here's a pull request for dlang.org;

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/389

On 09/10/2013 04:25 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/9/2013 11:35 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>> C++11 has revitalized C++ in ways that are only just showing themselves.
>
> That's true.
>
>> This is a threat to D gaining traction.
>
> I'm less sure about that. I think it presents an opportunity for us.
> Driving the C++ resurgence is:
>
> 1. demand for high performance computing
>
> 2. turning back towards native languages
>
> 3. recognition of the value of functional-style programming techniques
>
> 4. recognition of the value of safety, encapsulation, etc.
>
> But regarding the latter two points, I don't buy that the new C++
> delivers. The classic is a oneliner Andrei wrote:
>
>      void fun() noexcept { throw "so sue me"; }
>
> noexcept means the function doesn't throw any exceptions. But it doesn't
> check! The above code compiles, and then fails at runtime. The
> opportunity for D is to deliver what C++ has promised.
>

Well that's almost completely useless.
About like static typing if the compiler didn't actually check it.

On 9/10/13, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> noexcept means the function doesn't throw any exceptions. But it doesn't
> check!
> The above code compiles, and then fails at runtime. The opportunity for D is
> to
> deliver what C++ has promised.

I wish we called it 'noexcept' as well instead of 'nothrow', because Throwables and Errors are still allowed to escape. When you're interfacing with other languages (e.g. passing a callback), you have to make sure *no* exceptions escape in the C callback. Marking the callback with nothrow only gets us one step close to that.