Sean Reque wrote:

>> Indeed, and DDBI always compiles with the correct combination of compiler and Tango :) The perceived problem here is that DDBI haven't had a stable release for a long time (and that I hope to rectify), and so you may have to be a bit lucky to get it to compile with your setup - to compile trunk now for instance, you need Tango trunk.
>> 
>> --
>> Lars Ivar Igesund
>> blog at http://larsivi.net
>> DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
>> Dancing the Tango
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean any personal offense. I've just dealt with one too many open source projects that wouldn't even compile, either because of lack of good up-to-date documentation or just plain bugs, or both. I remember reading a forum post by an open source project owner once where the owner admitted that the build for his project had bugs and did not work. Not only so,  he openly admitted he hadn't fixed them because he didn't find that kind of work interesting, and was instead asking for volunteers to do it for him!!!!

No offense taken :) Actually I was proven to even be wrong in my above
statement :P

> I feel like, while it is getting better, that many open source content creators focus more on pursuing personal interests than creating something useful for other people. I have no problems with people wanting to explore personal interests. Just don't try to tease the public and get them to believe you have made something worth their time when it isn't! (Again, that's not directed to anyone in particular.)

Well, many open source projects _do_ scratch an itch, and they are often publicized on the off chance that others could be interested in it. If you indeed are giving it "commercial" properties, then of course one should expect it to build.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango

Ty Tower Wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
> > > Don't start on me ! I am still here and contributing with posts wherever I see stupidity,
> > 
> > Contributing more stupidity?
> 
> Now you see Lars here be your way, and your error.
> Attack the messenger and ignore the message
> We all fall into it from time to time but you do it regularly whenever someone says anything negative.
> 
> What happens then is no-one dare give you a message for fear of ridicule and being on your high horse you influence others with your view .
> So if its OK for you to do it ,it will be acceptable for others and this permeates down to other forum members and nothing gets fixed
> 
> This is how it is with D now . You could fix it simply by a small change to  your approach and attitude. If you assume directness is rudeness you are very wrong.

I wise man speaks of what he sees.  The easiest approach to communication in a newsgroup, forum, or mailing list is a simple loop:

1) State what you see.
2) State what you think.
3) (optional) State what you ****think**** should change.
4) Goto: 1

Ty sees a resistence to change.  He thinks that this is making D a harder language for new people to get into.  He thinks that people should start taking criticism less personally and more like contstructive criticism.

I see no reason for animosity here.

Clay Smith wrote:
> Chris R. Miller wrote:
>> Ty Tower Wrote:
>>
>>> Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose you already made your decision, but as mentioned, a question in
>>>> the forum would have given you more information on this. DDBI has moved
>>>> very slowly over the last 18 months, but is being picked up again now, and
>>>> will hopefully have a new release soonish. DDBI in trunk is now Tango only,
>>>> but should work with DMD 1.028/29.
>>>> I won't critize your company for making the choice it did, as it obviosly
>>>> will need to earn money, but I don't see how you can expect the community
>>>> to do what you want it to do with getting involved yourself. 
>>> He has just done so?
>>
>> He criticized the decision, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
>>
>> Ruby is probably a better choice for a product they need to make money off of.  Ruby has a bigger community, it's older, and more stable.  It has better, more mature libraries, and setting it up is far easier than it is with D. In addition, he said that database support was lacking in D.  I have to second that.  DDBI is really the only viable tool that I can find, and on its dsource page it says to not use it because it's "going to change."  I can totally understand the confusion on that point.  The Tango confusion, not so much.
>>
>> Ruby, on the other hand, is an SQL embedded language.  Doing things with databases is going to be trivially easy with Ruby.
>>
>> Furthermore, Ruby has some excellent web-facing support with Ruby on Rails.  If they wanted to add some web-facing support to their product, they could use the exact same source code and the exact same libraries for the web application that they use for the rest of the whole mess.  Ruby can also make use of C extensions, which will doubtlessly become useful for managing - or even mangling - videos (since Ruby itself isn't all that fast in comparison).  That will also allow them to tap into an existing, impressive set of C libraries for video stuff, which they won't have to code.
>>
>> It's probably a better choice to go with Ruby -- for **them**.
>>
>>>>> I think some serious attention needs to be focused on this, rather than
>>>>> the minutiae of the latest cool language feature.  I have been following D
>>>>> for some years now, hoping it would all come together --- and I hope it
>>>>> does, soon --- as it feels D is being left in the dust.
>>>> Tools situation may have stagnated, but I'm not sure you have followed Tango
>>>> too closely :)
>>>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> A very good friend of mine and an absolutely fantastic programmer once told me some great advice: stop making stupid UML diagrams and write code!
>>
> 
> Sorry, but I have to say that you are not getting great advice. The design stage is the most important stage in the life of a program. Get that wrong and you can write all the code you want, and it will all be wrong.

Your first design will either be wrong or take forever! (at least a lot longer than it need as you make decisions based on lack of experience with the problem)

Better to start with a minimal design and then prototype and iterate. Set up your development process to deal with design changes and code refactoring.

Reply to Daniel,

> Your first design will either be wrong or take forever! (at least a
> lot longer than it need as you make decisions based on lack of
> experience with the problem)
> 
> Better to start with a minimal design and then prototype and iterate.
> Set up your development process to deal with design changes and code
> refactoring.
> 

Or better yet, work with a system that allows you to define how to derive the implementation from your design.

Then the only thing you need to iterate on is the design and the derivation rules (and they can be reused for the next project).

(Darn where did this soapbox I'm standing on come from <G>)

Chris R. Miller wrote:
> Ty Tower Wrote:
> 
>> Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
>>>> Don't start on me ! I am still here and contributing with posts wherever I see stupidity, 
>>> Contributing more stupidity?
>> Now you see Lars here be your way, and your error.
>> Attack the messenger and ignore the message We all fall into it from time to time but you do it regularly whenever someone says anything negative.
>>
>> What happens then is no-one dare give you a message for fear of ridicule and being on your high horse you influence others with your view .
>> So if its OK for you to do it ,it will be acceptable for others and this permeates down to other forum members and nothing gets fixed 
>>
>> This is how it is with D now . You could fix it simply by a small change to  your approach and attitude. If you assume directness is rudeness you are very wrong.
> 
> I wise man speaks of what he sees.  The easiest approach to communication in a newsgroup, forum, or mailing list is a simple loop:
> 
> 1) State what you see.
> 2) State what you think.
> 3) (optional) State what you ****think**** should change.
> 4) Goto: 1
> 
> Ty sees a resistence to change.  He thinks that this is making D a harder language for new people to get into.  He thinks that people should start taking criticism less personally and more like contstructive criticism.
> 
> I see no reason for animosity here.
> 
I don't see how you can take a person who has conversations with themselves (under different aliases) seriously.

Especially when all the multiple personalities are douchebags haha.

Neal Alexander Wrote:

> Chris R. Miller wrote:
> > Ty Tower Wrote:
> > 
> >> Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
> >>>> Don't start on me ! I am still here and contributing with posts wherever I see stupidity,
> >>> Contributing more stupidity?
> >> Now you see Lars here be your way, and your error.
> >> Attack the messenger and ignore the message
> >> We all fall into it from time to time but you do it regularly whenever someone says anything negative.
> >>
> >> What happens then is no-one dare give you a message for fear of ridicule and being on your high horse you influence others with your view .
> >> So if its OK for you to do it ,it will be acceptable for others and this permeates down to other forum members and nothing gets fixed
> >>
> >> This is how it is with D now . You could fix it simply by a small change to  your approach and attitude. If you assume directness is rudeness you are very wrong.
> > 
> > I wise man speaks of what he sees.  The easiest approach to communication in a newsgroup, forum, or mailing list is a simple loop:
> > 
> > 1) State what you see.
> > 2) State what you think.
> > 3) (optional) State what you ****think**** should change.
> > 4) Goto: 1
> > 
> > Ty sees a resistence to change.  He thinks that this is making D a harder language for new people to get into.  He thinks that people should start taking criticism less personally and more like contstructive criticism.
> > 
> > I see no reason for animosity here.
> > 
> I don't see how you can take a person who has conversations with themselves (under different aliases) seriously.
> 
> Especially when all the multiple personalities are douchebags haha.

Cant give a reasonable argument so go with the name calling. If you think this is the case prove it ?

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Clay,
> 
>> Sorry, but I have to say that you are not getting great advice. The design stage is the most important stage in the life of a program. Get that wrong and you can write all the code you want, and it will all be wrong.
>>
> 
> That said, you have given nothing to the end user until you start writhing code. So design the code and then and then get on to writhing it. I haven't seen it my self but I rather suspect that projects have failed because they didn't want to be done designing it.

Yes, that's more or less his point.  You can always rewrite a bad system, or anything else.  Whatever you call it, you can always polish the turd later, but getting something - anything - would be an imperative.

Neal Alexander wrote:
> Chris R. Miller wrote:
>> Ty Tower Wrote:
>>
>>> Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
>>>>> Don't start on me ! I am still here and contributing with posts wherever I see stupidity,
>>>> Contributing more stupidity?
>>> Now you see Lars here be your way, and your error.
>>> Attack the messenger and ignore the message We all fall into it from
>>> time to time but you do it regularly whenever someone says anything
>>> negative.
>>>
>>> What happens then is no-one dare give you a message for fear of
>>> ridicule and being on your high horse you influence others with your
>>> view .
>>> So if its OK for you to do it ,it will be acceptable for others and
>>> this permeates down to other forum members and nothing gets fixed
>>> This is how it is with D now . You could fix it simply by a small
>>> change to  your approach and attitude. If you assume directness is
>>> rudeness you are very wrong.
>>
>> I wise man speaks of what he sees.  The easiest approach to communication in a newsgroup, forum, or mailing list is a simple loop:
>>
>> 1) State what you see.
>> 2) State what you think.
>> 3) (optional) State what you ****think**** should change.
>> 4) Goto: 1
>>
>> Ty sees a resistence to change.  He thinks that this is making D a harder language for new people to get into.  He thinks that people should start taking criticism less personally and more like contstructive criticism.
>>
>> I see no reason for animosity here.
>>
> I don't see how you can take a person who has conversations with themselves (under different aliases) seriously.
> 
> Especially when all the multiple personalities are douchebags haha.

In the event that you are accusing me of being "personality" of Ty, I rebuke you and must say you have no idea what you are talking about.

We are two different people who live on different continents and have different lives.  I resent your implications to the contrary.

Chris R. Miller wrote:
> Neal Alexander wrote:
>> Chris R. Miller wrote:
>>> Ty Tower Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lars Ivar Igesund Wrote:
>>>>>> Don't start on me ! I am still here and contributing with posts wherever I see stupidity, 
>>>>> Contributing more stupidity?
>>>> Now you see Lars here be your way, and your error.
>>>> Attack the messenger and ignore the message We all fall into it from time to time but you do it regularly whenever someone says anything negative.
>>>>
>>>> What happens then is no-one dare give you a message for fear of ridicule and being on your high horse you influence others with your view .
>>>> So if its OK for you to do it ,it will be acceptable for others and this permeates down to other forum members and nothing gets fixed
>>>> This is how it is with D now . You could fix it simply by a small change to  your approach and attitude. If you assume directness is rudeness you are very wrong.
>>>
>>> I wise man speaks of what he sees.  The easiest approach to communication in a newsgroup, forum, or mailing list is a simple loop:
>>>
>>> 1) State what you see.
>>> 2) State what you think.
>>> 3) (optional) State what you ****think**** should change.
>>> 4) Goto: 1
>>>
>>> Ty sees a resistence to change.  He thinks that this is making D a harder language for new people to get into.  He thinks that people should start taking criticism less personally and more like contstructive criticism.
>>>
>>> I see no reason for animosity here.
>>>
>> I don't see how you can take a person who has conversations with themselves (under different aliases) seriously.
>>
>> Especially when all the multiple personalities are douchebags haha.
> 
> In the event that you are accusing me of being "personality" of Ty, I rebuke you and must say you have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> We are two different people who live on different continents and have different lives.  I resent your implications to the contrary.
> 
If i were accusing you of being him, why would i ask how *you* could take *him* seriously.

And as far is i can tell, i've seen 2-3 handles that could easily be aliases of his. Based on their mannerisms/writing style, and how they always seem to agree with each other and bump each others threads.

Not that i really care either way, but Lars is probably right to call him a dumbass heh.

Chris R. Miller wrote:

> BCS wrote:
>Whatever you call it, you can always polish the turd later,

I'm not normally of a weak disposition, but please don't post video of your polishing attempts.

Unless, by "later", you mean far enough in the future that we're talking coprolites :)

b.
--