January 06, 2013
On 13-01-06 11:43 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Pierre Rouleau, el  5 de January a las 23:19 me escribiste:
>> On 13-01-05 4:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2013 10:06 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
>>>> On 13-01-05 5:39 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> On 1/5/2013 1:30 AM, Pierre Rouleau wrote:
>>>>>> I noticed that D 2.062 has no new features.  What would it take to
>>>>>> remove the
>>>>>> link to New/Changed Features on that version since there are none?
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you have a plan of what they will be and a target date for the next
>>>> release?
>>>
>>> We've never had a release that didn't have some new/changed features.
>>
>> I know.
>>
>> What I'm trying to see is what is the development *plan* for D2?
>
> Plan? hahaha, you must be new around here :P
>
My wife keeps telling me to be more optimistic than pessimistic, although I think being pessimist for the short term for the goal of being optimistic for the longer term has always worked for me.

That's why I was proposing a gentle first step of keeping a running list of future ideas inside a file that could be debated from a specific discussion in this mailing list or another.

-- 
/Pierre Rouleau
January 06, 2013
On 13-01-06 11:40 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Pierre Rouleau, el  4 de January a las 11:59 me escribiste:
>> On 13-01-04 3:45 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2013 12:16 AM, eles wrote:
>>>> Two concrete examples:
>>>>
>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5992
>>>>
>>>> is described in the list as: " Phobos Win64 - D2 "; At least, change
>>>> its title
>>>> to something more human, like "Win64 alpha has been released with working
>>>> Phobos." (yes, that's exactly Don's comment, but at the end of the
>>>> discussion).
>>>>
>>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5269
>>>>
>>>> is described as: "version(assert)". Only if you read the discussion you
>>>> understand that "version(unittest) that allows setup code for assertions
>>>> to run when assertions are enabled and be compiled out when assertions
>>>> are
>>>> disabled" was implemented.
>>>>
>>>> It is very different thing to see "version(assert)" and reading a
>>>> meaningful
>>>> description of it...
>>>
>>> I understand and agree. And, as I posted previously, anyone can fix the
>>> issue titles. I've already fixed a few.
>> Don't you think a process that requires reviewing these titles
>> *before* the actual software release announcement posting would
>> help?
>
> Yeah, that's another issue too. Having mutating "release notes" is awful
> and a PR disaster. Users only see the changelog once, assuming is
> immutable, because one thinks that releases are immutable and complete
> (those are very fundamental properties of a release, otherwise is a
> preview or a snapshot).
>
> That's another thing that I think is important to address eventually.
>

Currently, from the outside, I get the impression that the D language is a great language but a language for its developers only.  Although it might be OK while the language is in its infancy, I would hope that D(2) would come out of that state now that several books exist, that the standard library seems in pretty good shape, that several other libraries, frameworks and tools exist.   To me, what seems missing is some wrapper around all of this that would make D(2) much more attractive for organizations like the one I work for. I am personally very interested in D(2) and have already done discussions inside my work place, but without that sort of visible infrastructure I doubt I would be able to convince anyone to adopt D(2) for any product-based development (and even for some internal tools).

So, again, this is why I was asking whether you guys thought it would be a good idea for me to start a discussion somewhere in one of the D mailing lists, to gather the list of new features planned for the future (unless something like that already exists, but I did not find it) and get something going to create a running list.



-- 
/Pierre Rouleau
January 06, 2013
On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 11:42 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: […]
> Yea, I've noticed the same thing :( People are so enamored with their iDevices, that they think Apple can do no wrong. At least that's the only explanation I can think of.

Perhaps Apple employees visit everyone who buys an Apple device and
secretly implants the chip in the purchasers head?  ;-)

Personally I think Apple laptop hardware is great, the software however
leaves a lot to be desired.

> Like browsers, for instance. When Microsoft had their browser merely
> uninstallable and set as the *initial* default browser, the DOJ went
> apeshit, nevermind the fact that MS did *nothing* to prevent people
> from downloading and using competing browsers. Apple, OTOH, does the
> same, except they also PROHIBIT competing browsers (only the "shell"
> around the webview widget can be changed), and yet as long as Apple's
> the one doing it nobody seems to mind. Apple's has been known
> to do the same for other software besides browsers as well.

Perchance Apple have simply paid off the DOJ.  Or mayhap the Apple employees and their chip implantation is more successful than we know?

> And then Jobs's personal grudge against Android (still
> unfortunately being carried out in full by the new regime, puppeted
> by a ghost apparently), in particular the irrational lawsuit against
> Samsung where Apple is abusing software/design patents to go on the
> offensive (not just using them defensively). The judge, even as an Apple
> user, made it clear that Apple had basically no standing, and yet those
> goddamn jururs irrationally ruled in favor of Apple anyway.

The result in the case was basically a forgone conclusion: USA company domiciled within a couple of miles of all the jurors vs. a South Korean company. No contest, whatever the actual rights and wrongs. Should have been a bench trial from the outset.

Hopefully everyone is responding to the USPTO regarding software patents.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder


January 06, 2013
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Pierre Rouleau <prouleau001@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>>>>> So, again, this is why I was asking whether you guys thought it would
> be a good idea for me to start a discussion somewhere in one of the D mailing lists, to gather the list of new features planned for the future (unless something like that already exists, but I did not find it) and get something going to create a running list.


You could start by a thread for 2.061: what's new, in a human-readable format.

I'd say:

- 64 bits for Windows
- User-Defined Attributes (with a link to the incoming documentation).

These two themes justify a new release by themselves. Window 64 was clearly an 'official' goal. UDA were just a momentary burst of coding from Walter :)

As for the future, I fear you'll get 'generic' declarations concerning const/immutable/shared, but halas not from the guys who actually do the real work. Then everyone and their dog will flock to present their pet bug.

The process is still a bit amateurish, but it's coming together. Now that 64 bits Windows is out, I guess the next release will focus on killing the related bugs.

As a token of goodwill, I'm willing to write a short text describing the new release and plans for the next ones, except I don't even *know* what the new release brought or what the next one will be.


January 06, 2013
On 13-01-03 1:37 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:43:03 +0100
> schrieb "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com>:
>

>
> I agree. But we should probably start shipping minor releases.


+1

That would also enhance the visibility of the new language features in major releases for the end-users.

-- 
/Pierre Rouleau
January 06, 2013
On 13-01-06 2:52 PM, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Pierre Rouleau <prouleau001@gmail.com
> <mailto:prouleau001@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     So, again, this is why I was asking whether you guys thought it
>     would be a good idea for me to start a discussion somewhere in one
>     of the D mailing lists, to gather the list of new features planned
>     for the future (unless something like that already exists, but I did
>     not find it) and get something going to create a running list.
>
>
> You could start by a thread for 2.061: what's new, in a human-readable
> format.
>
Should I post it in D.announce or somewhere else?

-- 
/Pierre Rouleau
January 06, 2013
On 2013-01-06 16:20, Pierre Rouleau wrote:

> Is there a file somewhere that lists all requested features, under
> development features? Or the various mailing lists the only source of
> information?

There is some information at the wiki, the DIP's.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
January 06, 2013
The main newsgroup. Normally, D.announce should not contain this kind of conversation. It's supposed to be a low-bandwidth list for announcing projects and releases.


January 06, 2013
On 13-01-06 2:52 PM, Philippe Sigaud wrote:

> As a token of goodwill, I'm willing to write a short text describing the
> new release and plans for the next ones, except I don't even *know* what
> the new release brought or what the next one will be.
>
>


I, for one, would be very interested.  Even if the info gets updated later by people that notice errors or omissions in the information.

If you did that, and either stored it inside a file stored in the repo or posted in the mailing list, it would be a starting point, No?   Info on what is coming in the future as opposed to what has already been done would be a good point to start IMO, because the comments that might be drawn out of this activity may increase the overall awareness and push for an eventual procedure.

-- 
/Pierre Rouleau
January 06, 2013
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 19:25:48 +0000
Russel Winder <russel@winder.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 11:42 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: […]
> > Yea, I've noticed the same thing :( People are so enamored with their iDevices, that they think Apple can do no wrong. At least that's the only explanation I can think of.
> 
> Perhaps Apple employees visit everyone who buys an Apple device and
> secretly implants the chip in the purchasers head?  ;-)
> 

Secretly? It's part of the eyePhone's basic user instructions! Matt Groening even showed Fry and Leela installing theirs. ;)

> Personally I think Apple laptop hardware is great,

Is it? I wouldn't know. I know the earlier iPods had a lot of
reliability problems. The one thing about modern Apple laptops
that does get me though is that I just don't get the compulsive
obsession with thinness. Yea, thin is fine (up to the point where I
worry about accidentally snapping it), but I'd take a roomy HDD, optical
drive, lots of connection ports, and good price over "Gee whiz! Look how
thin it is!" anyway.

I could ditch the traditional HDD/optical drives for the sake of battery life on a swivel-touchscreen netbook. But even then, I see very minimal benefit to extra thinness.

> the software however leaves a lot to be desired.
> 

I could go on and on about apple software, but I've done so enough already, and I'll refrain now ;)

> > Like browsers, for instance. When Microsoft had their browser merely uninstallable and set as the *initial* default browser, the DOJ went apeshit, nevermind the fact that MS did *nothing* to prevent people from downloading and using competing browsers. Apple, OTOH, does the same, except they also PROHIBIT competing browsers (only the "shell" around the webview widget can be changed), and yet as long as Apple's the one doing it nobody seems to mind. Apple's has been known to do the same for other software besides browsers as well.
> 
> Perchance Apple have simply paid off the DOJ.  Or mayhap the Apple employees and their chip implantation is more successful than we know?
> 

Heh :)

> > And then Jobs's personal grudge against Android (still unfortunately being carried out in full by the new regime, puppeted by a ghost apparently), in particular the irrational lawsuit against Samsung where Apple is abusing software/design patents to go on the offensive (not just using them defensively). The judge, even as an Apple user, made it clear that Apple had basically no standing, and yet those goddamn jururs irrationally ruled in favor of Apple anyway.
> 
> The result in the case was basically a forgone conclusion: USA company domiciled within a couple of miles of all the jurors vs. a South Korean company. No contest, whatever the actual rights and wrongs. Should have been a bench trial from the outset.
> 

Good points.

> Hopefully everyone is responding to the USPTO regarding software patents.
> 

Does the USPTO even acknowledge the _existence_ of anyone who isn't a corporate bigwig? Let alone pay attention to anything they say? I think "corruption", I think "USPTO". Not joking about that, either.