On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 08:48:37 UTC, Nemanja Borić wrote:
> On Friday, 21 September 2018 at 21:07:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Sociomantic "maintains" (well, much more in the past than today) D1 compiler and you can find latest releases here (Ubuntu): https://bintray.com/sociomantic-tsunami/dlang/dmd1 (direct link https://bintray.com/sociomantic-tsunami/dlang/dmd1/v1.082.1#files) or you can compile https://github.com/dlang/dmd/tree/dmd-1.x yourself and hope that the compiler bug is fixed - we've certainly fixed a lot of them in the past years (decade?).
>
> [...]

Thank you for valuable info. i'll check that out.

On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 10:53:25 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 09:42:48 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear/read about the features that some developers don't like with D2.
>
> I'm going to guess it has to do with all the attributes for functions which you often have to remember is it @attribute or is it just attribute like is it @nogc or is it nogc etc.
>
> It's one of the things that probably throws off a lot of new users of D, because they feel like they __have__ to know those although they're often optional and you can live without them completely.
>
> They make the language seem bloated.

the language is bloated. trying to read the source of D2 makes gives you the feeling of getting eye cancer.
so we decided if D at all then it should be D1.

On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:22:03 UTC, new wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 10:53:25 UTC, bauss wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 09:42:48 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> I'm going to guess it has to do with all the attributes for functions which you often have to remember is it @attribute or is it just attribute like is it @nogc or is it nogc etc.
>>
>> It's one of the things that probably throws off a lot of new users of D, because they feel like they __have__ to know those although they're often optional and you can live without them completely.
>>
>> They make the language seem bloated.
>
> the language is bloated. trying to read the source of D2 makes gives you the feeling of getting eye cancer.
> so we decided if D at all then it should be D1.

sorry i meant D2-phobos

On 23/09/2018 1:22 AM, new wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 10:53:25 UTC, bauss wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 09:42:48 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd be interested to hear/read about the features that some developers don't like with D2.
>>
>> I'm going to guess it has to do with all the attributes for functions which you often have to remember is it @attribute or is it just attribute like is it @nogc or is it nogc etc.
>>
>> It's one of the things that probably throws off a lot of new users of D, because they feel like they __have__ to know those although they're often optional and you can live without them completely.
>>
>> They make the language seem bloated.
> 
> the language is bloated. trying to read the source of D2 makes gives you the feeling of getting eye cancer.
> so we decided if D at all then it should be D1.

Then D isn't the right choice for you.

On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:25:27 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> Then D isn't the right choice for you.

I think it makes for a better community if we can be more welcoming, helpful a gracious instead of responding to criticism this way. This is someone who saw enough potential with D to end up on the forums but had some gripes with it, after all who doesn't? I'm glad he took the initiative to provide us with good feedback, and he's not the first to take issue with the inconsistent '@' attribute syntax.  I'm sure everyone can agree this inconsistency is less than ideal but that doesn't mean D isn't right for them and we should respond this feedback like this with thanks rather than dismissal.

On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 14:31:20 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:25:27 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> Then D isn't the right choice for you.
>
> I think it makes for a better community if we can be more welcoming, helpful a gracious instead of responding to criticism this way. This is someone who saw enough potential with D to end up on the forums but had some gripes with it, after all who doesn't? I'm glad he took the initiative to provide us with good feedback, and he's not the first to take issue with the inconsistent '@' attribute syntax.  I'm sure everyone can agree this inconsistency is less than ideal but that doesn't mean D isn't right for them and we should respond this feedback like this with thanks rather than dismissal.

That inconsistency is an issue for me. I wish there a clear decision to make things consistent.

On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 15:25:32 UTC, aberba wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 14:31:20 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:25:27 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>>> Then D isn't the right choice for you.
>>
>> I think it makes for a better community if we can be more welcoming, helpful a gracious instead of responding to criticism this way. This is someone who saw enough potential with D to end up on the forums but had some gripes with it, after all who doesn't? I'm glad he took the initiative to provide us with good feedback, and he's not the first to take issue with the inconsistent '@' attribute syntax.  I'm sure everyone can agree this inconsistency is less than ideal but that doesn't mean D isn't right for them and we should respond this feedback like this with thanks rather than dismissal.
>
> That inconsistency is an issue for me. I wish there a clear decision to make things consistent.

Yeah there's been alot of discussion around it over the years, which is why I put this together about 4 years ago:

https://wiki.dlang.org/Language_Designs_Explained#Function_attributes

Gosh I've forgotten how long I've been using D.

This is just so reminiscent of the Python 2 / Python 3 fiasco.

Python 3 was clearly an improvement over Python 2, but the way in which the changes came to the community caused a violent split. Even after many years, there are those for whom Python 3 is anathema and not to be used.

The Python community has now moved on, and the Python 3 haters are just left to their own devices. If they want to come to the community they have to be accepting that Python 3 is the mainline and not try to undermine that.

The Python community is the most diverse and welcoming community of all the programming communities I have ever been involved with. The 2/3 war is over, 3 is the one true way. Until 4 is released.

On Sat, 2018-09-22 at 14:31 +0000, Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:25:27 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> > Then D isn't the right choice for you.
> 
> I think it makes for a better community if we can be more welcoming, helpful a gracious instead of responding to criticism this way. This is someone who saw enough potential with D to end up on the forums but had some gripes with it, after all who doesn't? I'm glad he took the initiative to provide us with good feedback, and he's not the first to take issue with the inconsistent '@' attribute syntax.  I'm sure everyone can agree this inconsistency is less than ideal but that doesn't mean D isn't right for them and we should respond this feedback like this with thanks rather than dismissal.

Someone did say, Use D 2 but without the cruft and it looks and feels like D1. That seems like a constructive suggestion.

Perhaps D 2 can be improved by getting rid of the cruft and saying backward compatibility is seriously over-rated.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 16:22:31 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> This is just so reminiscent of the Python 2 / Python 3 fiasco.
>
> Python 3 was clearly an improvement over Python 2, but the way in which the changes came to the community caused a violent split. Even after many years, there are those for whom Python 3 is anathema and not to be used.
>
> [...]

Have you followed the discussion of Jonathan on @implicit?
It seems that D2 is going in the opposite direction: more cruft is being added, for sake of (dubious) compatibility.

On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 15:45:09 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 15:25:32 UTC, aberba wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 14:31:20 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:25:27 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>>>> Then D isn't the right choice for you.
>>>
>>> I think it makes for a better community if we can be more welcoming, helpful a gracious instead of responding to criticism this way. This is someone who saw enough potential with D to end up on the forums but had some gripes with it, after all who doesn't? I'm glad he took the initiative to provide us with good feedback, and he's not the first to take issue with the inconsistent '@' attribute syntax.  I'm sure everyone can agree this inconsistency is less than ideal but that doesn't mean D isn't right for them and we should respond this feedback like this with thanks rather than dismissal.
>>
>> That inconsistency is an issue for me. I wish there a clear decision to make things consistent.
>
> Yeah there's been alot of discussion around it over the years, which is why I put this together about 4 years ago:
>
> https://wiki.dlang.org/Language_Designs_Explained#Function_attributes
>
> Gosh I've forgotten how long I've been using D.

Interesting article.

"int safe = 0; // This code would break if "safe" was added as a keyword"

My question here: why didn't D use a similar solution as C when dealing with these things? Look at the introduction of the bool datatype in C99. They created the compiler reserved type "_Bool" and put "typedef _Bool bool" in "stdbool.h". The people wanting to use this new feature can include this header, and other can leave it be. No ugly "@" polluting the language on every line where it's used. Wouldn't a similar solution have been possible in D?