On Thursday, December 05, 2013 06:44:41 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/4/13 10:57 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 20:53:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> Also does everybody like the graphics at the top of http://dconf.org/2014/index.html?
> > 
> > Frankly, it's awful.
> 
> I agree!!

As do I. The font is not particularly pretty, and the yellow is way to harsh. But unfortunately, I doubt that I could do much better. And it's pretty amazing that you managed to do that on your phone. Imagine how someone would have looked at you had you told them ten years ago that in the future, you'd be doing something like that on your phone... :)

- Jonathan M Davis

On Thursday, 5 December 2013 at 14:44:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/4/13 10:57 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 20:53:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Also does everybody like the graphics at the top of
>>> http://dconf.org/2014/index.html?
>>>
>> Frankly, it's awful.
>
> I agree!!
>
> Andrei

I'm not a designer, but I think whatever alternative is better.

My try:
http://imgur.com/a/hCIPm

Font: Sansus Webissimo

On 04/12/13 23:14, Walter Bright wrote:
> I'm opposed to it.
>
> For one example, a year ago I had to make dmd work on Win64. LLVM didn't support
> Win64. I would have been stymied.
>
> It is very good for D to have 3 equivalent implementations - dmd, gdc, and ldc.
> Each has its strengths and weaknesses. It makes for a very strong ecosystem.

The problem we have is that while all 3 implementations are equivalent, some implementations are more equivalent than others ... :-)

Sometimes this can be a downstream problem -- people testing code with DMD but not LDC or GDC, so bugs or issues don't get recognized (or they do, but the bugs don't get reported to the compiler teams).  But more fundamentally, it's that if you're running git-HEAD DMD, you're running the very latest code, whereas if you're running git-HEAD LDC or GDC, you're still running only the latest stable frontend/runtime/standard library releases.

So, that means that if you need the ability to get fast turnaround on bugfixes or new features, you HAVE to run DMD.

That really seems a constraint that we ought to be free of.

On Friday, 6 December 2013 at 11:45:36 UTC, Tourist wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 December 2013 at 14:44:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/4/13 10:57 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 20:53:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Also does everybody like the graphics at the top of
>>>> http://dconf.org/2014/index.html?
>>>>
>>> Frankly, it's awful.
>>
>> I agree!!
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I'm not a designer, but I think whatever alternative is better.
>
> My try:
> http://imgur.com/a/hCIPm
>
> Font: Sansus Webissimo

Oops, 2014 of course :)
http://imgur.com/a/EkIPw

On Friday, 6 December 2013 at 12:13:28 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 04/12/13 23:14, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I'm opposed to it.
>>
>> For one example, a year ago I had to make dmd work on Win64. LLVM didn't support
>> Win64. I would have been stymied.
>>
>> It is very good for D to have 3 equivalent implementations - dmd, gdc, and ldc.
>> Each has its strengths and weaknesses. It makes for a very strong ecosystem.
>
> The problem we have is that while all 3 implementations are equivalent, some implementations are more equivalent than others ... :-)
>
> Sometimes this can be a downstream problem -- people testing code with DMD but not LDC or GDC, so bugs or issues don't get recognized (or they do, but the bugs don't get reported to the compiler teams).  But more fundamentally, it's that if you're running git-HEAD DMD, you're running the very latest code, whereas if you're running git-HEAD LDC or GDC, you're still running only the latest stable frontend/runtime/standard library releases.
>
> So, that means that if you need the ability to get fast turnaround on bugfixes or new features, you HAVE to run DMD.
>
> That really seems a constraint that we ought to be free of.

But is D not still doing a better job than Microsoft is of keeping their C++ compiler up to the latest C++ standard?

In fact in the C++ world all the compilers lag the standard to some extent. Its hard to expect that D would have all the compilers exactly in sync, though with the common front-end it should help.

On Friday, 6 December 2013 at 11:45:36 UTC, Tourist wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 December 2013 at 14:44:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/4/13 10:57 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 20:53:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Also does everybody like the graphics at the top of
>>>> http://dconf.org/2014/index.html?
>>>>
>>> Frankly, it's awful.
>>
>> I agree!!
>>
>> Andrei
>
> I'm not a designer, but I think whatever alternative is better.
>
> My try:
> http://imgur.com/a/hCIPm
>
> Font: Sansus Webissimo

Just add some letter spacing and bin that effin yellow. It will work wonders. The font is not really the problem, cos it makes sense to base it on the belly of "D". But add letter-spacing and make the font slimmer.

[@other suggestion] No drop shadows, please. In this context it don't make no sense to have drop shadows. Unless it's on a white or not grayish background.

On Friday, 6 December 2013 at 12:21:12 UTC, Tourist wrote:
> On Friday, 6 December 2013 at 11:45:36 UTC, Tourist wrote:
>> On Thursday, 5 December 2013 at 14:44:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 12/4/13 10:57 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 20:53:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

>> My try:
>> http://imgur.com/a/hCIPm
>>
>> Font: Sansus Webissimo
>
> Oops, 2014 of course :)

Too bad. I really loved the way that you rounded the 4 until it became a 3. People find 4 to be not as smooth as the D belly, so maybe they will take a 3 instead :)

On 06/12/13 13:38, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
> But is D not still doing a better job than Microsoft is of keeping their C++
> compiler up to the latest C++ standard?

I'm not making any comparisons here, I'm simply saying that this is something it could be helpful to address, for D's own sake.

Comparisons to Microsoft are not very helpful anyway, because Microsoft is to a great extent in the position of being able to effectively dictate solutions, even where they clash with or fail to live up to standards.  That's both their advantage and their weakness.

> In fact in the C++ world all the compilers lag the standard to some extent. Its
> hard to expect that D would have all the compilers exactly in sync, though with
> the common front-end it should help.

That's the point -- with D we are in the lucky situation that not only do all our compilers share common frontends, runtimes and standard libraries, but all the developers are friends working together in a cooperative community.  We have all the resources in place to ensure that the 3 compilers are truly equal players.  All it will take is time and effort and a focus on making it happen.

I should add that (since bounties have been mentioned) this is another thing I'd happily put money towards, if it would help.

On 05/12/13 04:08, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> As Walter said, there is no chance of that happening.  However, we are
> slowly working to integrate or refactor away all gdc/ldc patches against the
> frontend.  This should greatly reduce the effort to merge patches, hopefully
> resulting in all three compilers permanently being in sync.

.... just as I brought the topic up in another branch of this thread [*] ... :-)

How are things going with that, what's the current status in terms of GDC/LDC patches being eliminated?  Do you have any idea of the timeframe within which it'll be complete, and does it rely at all on the C++ --> D transition?




[* I'm not sure this mix of metaphors really works.]

On Friday, 6 December 2013 at 14:33:59 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 06/12/13 13:38, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
>> But is D not still doing a better job than Microsoft is of keeping their C++
>> compiler up to the latest C++ standard?
>
> I'm not making any comparisons here, I'm simply saying that this is something it could be helpful to address, for D's own sake.
>
> Comparisons to Microsoft are not very helpful anyway, because Microsoft is to a great extent in the position of being able to effectively dictate solutions, even where they clash with or fail to live up to standards.  That's both their advantage and their weakness.
>
>> In fact in the C++ world all the compilers lag the standard to some extent. Its
>> hard to expect that D would have all the compilers exactly in sync, though with
>> the common front-end it should help.
>
> That's the point -- with D we are in the lucky situation that not only do all our compilers share common frontends, runtimes and standard libraries,

> but all the developers are friends working together in a cooperative community.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone!

> We have all the resources in place to ensure that the 3 compilers are truly equal players.  All it will take is time and effort and a focus on making it happen.
>
> I should add that (since bounties have been mentioned) this is another thing I'd happily put money towards, if it would help.