Is this a good idea?

Walter Bright wrote:

> Is this a good idea?

Yes.

Although, D.current and D.next or something along those lines, seems to me better than D1 and D2 (there is reason to believe there will be a D3 in the future).

--
 Simen

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:guafob$1uqd$2@digitalmars.com...
> Is this a good idea?

I don't think so. Not all discussion is specific to D1 or D2.

On Mon, 11 May 2009 17:26:54 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> Is this a good idea?

Leave digitalmars.D as it is and just add digitalmars.D.future

I suppose you could also add digitalmars.D.v1 for discussion just about that edition of D.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

On Mon, 11 May 2009 20:43:27 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:guafob$1uqd$2@digitalmars.com...
>> Is this a good idea?
> 
> I don't think so. Not all discussion is specific to D1 or D2.

I looks to me that Walter is thinking of having everything specific to D2 be moved and that related to D1 or both stay in digitalmars.D

With that in mind, D.beta or something might be better. But I don't know if this is the answer.

The discussions about D2 that are hundreds of posts would get their own section. This would give a clearer idea what discussions relate to D1, but would that show the real state of D1 activity? Would this categorization be beneficial to readers?

I personally don't see a problem with it, but don't know if it is a solution.

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Is this a good idea?
>

My gut reaction is 'yes'.  But what would be left on .D without the hundred-post threads about ranges?  There really _isn't_ that much conversation about D1, and most of it probably belongs on .D.learn anyway.

Somewhat offtopic: I get the impression, from using the D IRC channels, that a lot of newcomers are far more influenced into reading about and using D2 by the Digital Mars site than by how the newsgroups are divided.  The site guides you right into the D2 spec and compiler without ever really explaining that D2 is in beta, or that there are practically no libraries for it, or that virtually everyone who is using D for production code is using D1.  You get to the D site; what do you do?  Click "overview," naturally.  You read through that, and every one of the links is into the D2 spec.  The D 1.0 link at the top left has also disappeared.  And of course, since bigger numbers *must* be better, D1 is probably old and unsupported, right!

Maybe there should be a "foyer" page which explains the purpose, status, and future plans for both D1 and D2 (like I think it was Derek who said, nowhere on the DM site is it mentioned that D1 is still supported!).  Then and only then should visitors have the opportunity to see the rest of the appropriate spec.

No.

If we had D and D2, then we'll need D3 (and D4....). And we don't need both a D([1]) and a D.learn newsgroup. Not enough volume three groups.

We need _D.programming_ and _D.future_, that's all.

Once they're up, we post into d.learn that "please post in D.programming instead", and in D that "post in D.future instead".



The whole point of this name change is to steer people into *D.programming* by default. That means /anybody/ who approaches our news for the first time.

D.programming should contain both newbie questions, and general talk about the Current D version (i.e. D1 for now, and once "D2 is out", D1 and D2 together).


People who don't fancy themselves as language development guys, should get scared enough of the name D.future that they approach with caution. And that's all we need. If they peek in, and are comfortable with hairy stuff, and want to contribute, then just jump in, of course.

-------------------------

For this to serve the purpose we intend, D1 should be more prominent on the digitalmars web site, too. It is the Current Version, after all! D2 is only alpha, and not intended for use by others than the D language developers.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Is this a good idea?

Yes, but maybe not .D and .D2.

I think a separate news group for the huge threads about the future of D/D2 would be good, but there still needs to be a general newsgroup for general discussion - some discussions aren't specific to either or would be best left open. I like the idea of D.future as others have suggested.

Jarrett Billingsley, el 12 de mayo a las 01:01 me escribiste:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> > Is this a good idea?
> >
> 
> My gut reaction is 'yes'.  But what would be left on .D without the hundred-post threads about ranges?  There really _isn't_ that much conversation about D1, and most of it probably belongs on .D.learn anyway.

That's why I think D.learn should be named D.users and D should be named D.devel. D.learn seems to be a "newbie" group and D seems to be an "expert" group. Since there is no develpment in the D1 side, there would be no much D1 talking in D.devel (as it is now), except for some bug report discussion or something.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about D.programming and D.compilers

Then all programming questions goes to D.programming
and D.compilers could be the goto group for discussion
on compiler design.

Close D.learn and D.gnu.

I agree the D.learn sounds like it is for newbies.
And I think that all the compilers could benefit
form a shared discussion.



Robert Clipsham wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Is this a good idea?
> 
> Yes, but maybe not .D and .D2.
> 
> I think a separate news group for the huge threads about the future of D/D2 would be good, but there still needs to be a general newsgroup for general discussion - some discussions aren't specific to either or would be best left open. I like the idea of D.future as others have suggested.


-- 
Knud Sørensen
Programmer for hire.