On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 02:57:45 +1000
Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3 September 2013 12:34, Nick Sabalausky < SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:18:03 +1000
> > Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I've repeated myself 3 or 4 times here, but one more time for good measure...
> > >
> > > Requiring IDE assistance to make code _readable_ seems completely
> > > fail to me.
> > > 1) You're not always reading code in your IDE, often in commit
> > > logs, diff windows, emails, chat clients.
> > > 2) With so much hate for IDE support, it seems like a massive
> > > contradiction to say that an IDE should be required to make code
> > > readable.
> > >
> > > Reading code is the most fundamental task in programming. Anything that gets in the way of code readability is an epic fail.
> > >
> >
> > First of all, not everybody agrees that separating out function definitions makes code easier to read rather than harder.
> >
> > Also, maintainability is just as important as readability, and "poor maintainability" is a very big and very common objection to C++'s separation of member function definitions from class definitions. You're essentially writing and maintaining full documentation completely by hand and a lot of people feel very bogged down by the extreme non-DRYness of that very quickly, especially when there are already so many other ways to get the same information without maintaining it manually: Automatic Doc generators, high-level IDE class browsing, and code folding (and code folding is *not* an IDE thing, but an extremely common code editor thing).
> >
> 
> So then don't write your code that way. I didn't tell you how to
> write your code.
> I just said I hate inline function definitions, and so do all my
> colleagues. It demonstrably slowed us down, and it's annoying.
> 

I'm not trying to tell you to code any particular way either, I'm just explaining why there's so much ambivalence and distaste for the idea. It may very well work for you, but there's also many people who find it to be a demonstrable slowdown.

On Tue, 03 Sep 2013 13:21:47 +0200
Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@webdrake.net> wrote:

> On 03/09/13 09:39, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > Don't you have a region free DVD player? Basically only the first models sold in Sweden were tied to a specific region. The rest can play any model.
> 

The corporate-owned United States makes it very difficult to get hold of those.

FWIW, Best bet is to get a budget player from a company that doesn't
produce movies (Sony is the absolute worst.) Those are more likely to
have a hidden "disable region" setting you can do a web search for.
The $20 CyberHome players my dad and grandmother both have are currently
unlocked and will play discs that are both wrong region *and*
PAL-resolution. But there isn't chance in hell I'll ever be able to do
*either* of those with my PS3 or any other big-name player.

> You must remember that the US has this lovely law called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which puts lots of legal constraints on anything that allows you to bypass copy- and read-protection techniques.

I'm still pissed as hell at Clinton for that. Forget Monica, Clinton should have been jailed for DMCA (along with corporate stooge lawmakers who placed it in front of him in the first palce). As far as I'm concerned, the DMCA is an illegal law - it's a clear and blatant violation of fair use *rights* and therefore completely unjust and invalid. It's a moral obligation for it, as with any unjust law, to be violated as much as possible by anyone who still values freedom and justice half as much as they *claim* to.

On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:30:52PM +0200, Ramon wrote: [...]
> - dmd not debuggable -> not an acceptable solution, no matter how fast it compiles.

Please file bugs about this on the bug tracker (e.g., can't query local variables, strings show up as .length and .ptr instead of string value, etc., one bug per issue). That will give us ammunition to shoot Walter with to get him to fix it. ;-) (We'll try not to aim too carefully so that there will still be a D left at the end of the day. :-P)


> - gdc possibly still buggy (Disclaimer: Probably it was just bad
> luck that I fell over a bug (not even an important one) and am a
> little wary now - No offense intended. I'm immensely grateful
> that with gdc there is an alternative and, even better, GDB
> *works* with gdc - hurray!!)
> - gdc (2): I have to either use an old version (4.63) or build it
> myself along with gcc, which is a major hurdle

gdc-4.8 is already in debian/unstable.


[...]
> - Windoze stuff not yet tried. But the mere thought that D might force me to use Windoze puts dark shadows over D, sorry.
[...]

I'm not sure where you're getting the impression from that D is "windows centric". Judging from my observations, it would appear that windows support is lagging behind linux (e.g., 64-bit support for windows was only recently added; it has been working on *nix for a long time).


T

-- 
If a person can't communicate, the very least he could do is to shut up. -- Tom Lehrer, on people who bemoan their communication woes with their loved ones.

On 3 September 2013 21:30, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:
> Someone wrote sth along the line of "How egotistical! Some want this and want that. D doesn't get better or more popular by wanting ever more things".
>
> I'll very soon begin to work on a project. Originally it was planned to it in Ada. Relevant feature sets are roughly equal with D offering a little more (like comfortable unittests) and Ada being well proven.
>
> I *want* to go D. And I would, of course, gladly tell everyone who doesn't run away fast enough that our application is developed in D.(The application will quite probably have a good, even international visibility but by no means be major or widely known. The major (and very well useable, not "crippled") part of it will be free, btw.)
>
> In other words: One can contribute also by using (and talking about) D - not only by defending it teeth and claws or by writing code for or around D itself.
>
> Here is my current resumee:
>
> - dmd not debuggable -> not an acceptable solution, no matter how
> fast it compiles.
> - gdc possibly still buggy (Disclaimer: Probably it was just bad
> luck that I fell over a bug (not even an important one) and am a
> little wary now - No offense intended. I'm immensely grateful
> that with gdc there is an alternative and, even better, GDB
> *works* with gdc - hurray!!)

The current development of gdc passes 100% unittests and testsuite, so that gives me confidence to say that codegen bugs are very unlikely to be found in gdc.


> - gdc (2): I have to either use an old version (4.63) or build it
> myself along with gcc, which is a major hurdle

That is an old version.  As I dropped gcc-4.6 support in mainline development back in April 2012.

> - Can I trust the GDC guys, are they professionals? My impression so far: Yes. That's important to me because GDC clearly is the compiler I'd go with.

You can trust me. :o)

> - Will they provide at least GDC 4-7 binaries (they did for GDC
> 4-6 (debian)) - dunno. Would be a very big Plus.

gdc-4.7 was skipped because of lack of time I could dedicate.  This time around have collaborated with doko (gcc maintainer for debian/ubuntu) and gdc 4.8 is available in debian unstable.  It is recent enough using 2.062 front-end.

> In summary, my resumee is quite positive (if with quite some bumps) but *THE* go or break issue is debugging with dmd and GDC being reliable. For the former I don't hold my breath, for the latter I'm quite positively looking ahead.
>

Find a bug in gdc -> report it.  Otherwise saying it is unreliable with no basis is pretty useless to me  (I use it day in day out without problems).

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 21:21:51 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 3 September 2013 21:30, Ramon <spam@thanks.no> wrote:
>> Someone wrote sth along the line of "How egotistical! Some want
>> this and want that. D doesn't get better or more popular by
>> wanting ever more things".
>>
>> I'll very soon begin to work on a project. Originally it was
>> planned to it in Ada. Relevant feature sets are roughly equal
>> with D offering a little more (like comfortable unittests) and
>> Ada being well proven.
>>
>> I *want* to go D. And I would, of course, gladly tell everyone
>> who doesn't run away fast enough that our application is
>> developed in D.(The application will quite probably have a good,
>> even international visibility but by no means be major or widely
>> known. The major (and very well useable, not "crippled") part of
>> it will be free, btw.)
>>
>> In other words: One can contribute also by using (and talking
>> about) D - not only by defending it teeth and claws or by writing
>> code for or around D itself.
>>
>> Here is my current resumee:
>>
>> - dmd not debuggable -> not an acceptable solution, no matter how
>> fast it compiles.
>> - gdc possibly still buggy (Disclaimer: Probably it was just bad
>> luck that I fell over a bug (not even an important one) and am a
>> little wary now - No offense intended. I'm immensely grateful
>> that with gdc there is an alternative and, even better, GDB
>> *works* with gdc - hurray!!)
>
> The current development of gdc passes 100% unittests and testsuite, so
> that gives me confidence to say that codegen bugs are very unlikely to
> be found in gdc.
>
>
>> - gdc (2): I have to either use an old version (4.63) or build it
>> myself along with gcc, which is a major hurdle
>
> That is an old version.  As I dropped gcc-4.6 support in mainline
> development back in April 2012.
>
>> - Can I trust the GDC guys, are they professionals? My impression
>> so far: Yes. That's important to me because GDC clearly is the
>> compiler I'd go with.
>
> You can trust me. :o)
>
>> - Will they provide at least GDC 4-7 binaries (they did for GDC
>> 4-6 (debian)) - dunno. Would be a very big Plus.
>
> gdc-4.7 was skipped because of lack of time I could dedicate.  This
> time around have collaborated with doko (gcc maintainer for
> debian/ubuntu) and gdc 4.8 is available in debian unstable.  It is
> recent enough using 2.062 front-end.
>
>> In summary, my resumee is quite positive (if with quite some
>> bumps) but *THE* go or break issue is debugging with dmd and GDC
>> being reliable. For the former I don't hold my breath, for the
>> latter I'm quite positively looking ahead.
>>
>
> Find a bug in gdc -> report it.  Otherwise saying it is unreliable
> with no basis is pretty useless to me  (I use it day in day out
> without problems).

Iain, you made my day. Thanks so much!

I'm really, seriously. honestly grateful for what you did/are doing. In my case you are the one who put the D issue from "rather not *sigh" to "go ahead" ;)


Now, if you will excuse me, I'll hurry to debian unstable *g

A+ -R

On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 20:43:44 +0200
Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/1/13, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or enforce that the devs actually experience the end-user experience. Then they'll know what the problems actually are, have a realistic perspective of their productivity impact, and might take them more seriously.
> 
> But you can't force devs to hack on other people's IDE projects if they're not interested in IDEs. (especially if the IDEs are written in, say, C#, or are a complex C++ monster, or just have a lousy codebase).
> 
> If some IDEs don't work as advertised, why not file complaints to the developers of those IDEs?
> 

Or better yet, file pull requests.

> > None of the others could be bothered creating yet-another-webpage-account to log bugs they encountered. I suggested they do so a few times. I was promptly ignored. It's just that manually logging in to non-ajax websites is so last decade. People are growing very weary of creating and managing accounts on every website they visit.
> 
> Lazyness is abound these days. :)

Indeed. Having a problem with logging in is about as lazy as it gets (except for the asinine login systems that that block mailinator addresses).

But that said, logging in should *never* be a requirement for filing a bug report. It makes about as much sense as (tying into another branch of this thread here) preventing users from watching their own DVDs. I guess I didn't realize bugzilla was doing that since I've been logged into it for several years.

> I don't know what ajax has to do
> with it though. (web is not my thing)
> 

It doesn't have anything to do with ajax, it's OpenID (which is unrelated to Ajax). And OpenID is inherently flawed - it's a phisher's and data-miner's wet dream. It should NOT be encouraged, and certainly shouldn't be used by anyone who cares in the slightest about their own security or privacy. OpenID is a perfect example of what "Practical Cryptography" (a book by Niels Ferguson and Bruce Schneier) calls "dancing pigs". ("When users have a choice between security and dancing pigs, dancing pigs will win every time.")

If web logins are such a terrible chore, just use any of the many, many
existing tools for managing logins. FF has one built-in, and I'm
sure many others do, too. IIRC, OSX even has one at built in at the
operating system level. Security-wise, some of these may not be perfect
either, but at least they're not so ridiculously easy to phish and
cracking them requires access to your actual machine.


> I do like how stackoverflow allows you to log-in with a single click (e.g. using a Google account or something else), if bugzilla allowed this it would be neat.
> 

I don't know if they still do, but stack overflow used to *require* that to log in. That's why I never use stack overflow.

> Alternatively maybe we should allow unregistered user bug reports, but use a captcha or something to fight spam. I don't know how doable this is. Some other projects use this system (e.g. Tcl).

*Definitely*

On Monday, 2 September 2013 at 20:25:51 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Fer gawd's sake, why not put their entire freakin' back catalog on it?
>
> For example, there's a "sampling" of a few of Julia Childs' shows from the 60's. Why not put them all on?

The deliberate scarcity of entertainment, or at least enforcement of the new and unavailability of the old is a part of their plan. Music is similar in that it's hard to get hold of lots of older recordings through legal channels. They don't want the consumer to have freedom.

On 2013-09-03 23:00, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> The corporate-owned United States makes it very difficult to get hold of
> those.

Just import one from Europe (is that legal?), although that will probably not be cheap.

> FWIW, Best bet is to get a budget player from a company that doesn't
> produce movies (Sony is the absolute worst.) Those are more likely to
> have a hidden "disable region" setting you can do a web search for.
> The $20 CyberHome players my dad and grandmother both have are currently
> unlocked and will play discs that are both wrong region *and*
> PAL-resolution. But there isn't chance in hell I'll ever be able to do
> *either* of those with my PS3 or any other big-name player.

Yeah, I forgot about the DMCA. And no, it will most likely not work in a PS3. I'm wondering if it works in a PS3 here...

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-09-03 22:30, Ramon wrote:

> Here is my current resumee:
>
> - dmd not debuggable -> not an acceptable solution, no matter how
> fast it compiles.
> - gdc possibly still buggy (Disclaimer: Probably it was just bad
> luck that I fell over a bug (not even an important one) and am a
> little wary now - No offense intended. I'm immensely grateful
> that with gdc there is an alternative and, even better, GDB
> *works* with gdc - hurray!!)
> - gdc (2): I have to either use an old version (4.63) or build it
> myself along with gcc, which is a major hurdle
> -ldc not yet tried. Dunno.

Have you tried LDC?

> Major problem: No readily available mechanism (I know of and
> would trust/use) to 2/4 automate C lib binding.

I think I have already said this, but there's DStep:

https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/dstep

Don't know if you would trust/use it though.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-09-03 23:57, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> If web logins are such a terrible chore, just use any of the many, many
> existing tools for managing logins. FF has one built-in, and I'm
> sure many others do, too. IIRC, OSX even has one at built in at the
> operating system level. Security-wise, some of these may not be perfect
> either, but at least they're not so ridiculously easy to phish and
> cracking them requires access to your actual machine.

Yes, Mac OS X has the keychain.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg