On 2013-09-07 21:04, Walter Bright wrote:
> Recent threads here have made it pretty clear that VisualD is a critical
> piece of D infrastructure. (VisualD integrated D usage into Microsoft
> Visual Studio.)
>
> Andrei, myself and Rainer (VisualD's champion) are all in agreement on
> this.
>
> What do you think?

I don't think it matters that much which git repository it uses. It's more important, as others have suggested, to promote it, put it on dlang.org/downloads, integrate with bugzilla and so on.

Note, I'm not against it.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-09-08 23:47, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> Let's stick to grown-up words here. I'm not a fan of MS or Win either,
> but every time you write "Windoze" or spell something with $ it does
> nothing to hurt MS/Win and only makes you and other Posix users look
> like immature brats.

Why do you put him together with the rest of us Posix users, seems a bit unfair.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 07:21:17 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-09-08 23:47, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> Let's stick to grown-up words here. I'm not a fan of MS or Win either,
>> but every time you write "Windoze" or spell something with $ it does
>> nothing to hurt MS/Win and only makes you and other Posix users look
>> like immature brats.
>
> Why do you put him together with the rest of us Posix users, seems a bit unfair.

Don't worry, I'm pretty certain he meant only immature-brats like myself and not cultivated grown up persons like you.

(Note to myself: In order to get grown-up I should learn to insult those whose linguistic habits differ from mine)

Have a beautiful day, everyone :-)

On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 22:05 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: […]
> This opens the door to other projects as well - e.g. emacs and vim integration helpers.

The Emacs mode stuff for D really needs to be in its own Git repository I believe.  MELPA automatically pulls the current repository to create the Emacs packages for people to install via the Emacs packaging system.

Also the more stuff is in the main repository the less and less distributed the development of the various bits can be as only the gatekeepers can commit to the mainline.

-- 
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

On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 20:48 +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: […]
> One thing that could help with MonoD would be if it could effectively support more than the most recent stable version of MonoDevelop.  Version 3.0 is still the one used in many Linux distros.  (4.0 is currently in the "proposed" updates for Ubuntu 13.10, which means it'll probably be the default by the time 13.10 is released.)

Debian Unstable has Monodevelop 4.0.5, which means it should be in Ubuntu 14.04 by default.

> If VisualD can support VS 2010, 2011 and 2013, it's surely possible for MonoD to do something similar.
> 
> I recognize that the developer has provided an Ubuntu PPA for the latest MonoDevelop among other resources, but it's preferable not to oblige users to add extra archives to their distro.

This is an important issue for take up. If something isn't in the main repository of the distribution and requires lots of other things also not in the main distribution then it may get take up from "bleeding edge" folk but it will not get mainstream take up. The Ubuntu PPA is useful for the Ubuntu distributions but of no use to Debian, Mint, Fedora, RHEL, Arch, OS X. (Windows is just beyond the pale ;-)

Getting things into the main Debian, Fedora and Arch repositories seems like the best way of maximizing take up in the Linux community. Getting things into MacPorts and HomeBrew (the former for me), maximizes take up in the OS X community, even if DMG files are provided.

-- 
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

On Sunday, 8 September 2013 at 18:49:05 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> One thing that could help with MonoD would be if it could effectively support more than the most recent stable version of MonoDevelop.  Version 3.0 is still the one used in many Linux distros.  (4.0 is currently in the "proposed" updates for Ubuntu 13.10, which means it'll probably be the default by the time 13.10 is released.)
>
> If VisualD can support VS 2010, 2011 and 2013, it's surely possible for MonoD to do something similar.
>
> I recognize that the developer has provided an Ubuntu PPA for the latest MonoDevelop among other resources, but it's preferable not to oblige users to add extra archives to their distro.

Judging by the MonoD blog, that doesn't seem to be easy, because the MonoDevelop developers keep changing the API often.

On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 23:00 +0200, Ramon wrote:
> Just for the sake of completeness:
> 
> mono is *detested* and considered even more inacceptable than java by many linux and (even more) *BSD users.

It also appears that Microsoft are beginning to think the whole CLR thing is on it's last legs.

The whole "all non-Windows users have to hate C#" thing has some basis in fact but also had a lot of FUD associated with it.  The "Mono hatred" stemmed from that. So will Microsoft go after Mono with patent suits if they are not themselves using C# and CLR? They possibly might as an income stream, but it is unlikely to be profitable and so may be not.

Without solid support from Microsoft the C#F#/CLR culture is unlikely to remain strong, despite the serious success F# has had in making people interested in CLR. And C# is not a bad language, in many ways much better than Java. But Java has staying power in ways C#/F# do not.

> Actually I *did* try the eclipse D IDE thing ... and found it to match my (utterly negative) perception of java (which has pretty nothing to do with the D ide and pretty everything with eclipse). Concerning Mono-D I heard about it and respect the efforts of the creator(s) ... but never even looked at it (and never will until hell freezes).

Eclipse is a monster, but once you get used to it, it can be good. I do not use CDT, but I do use Eclipse sometimes for Java, Groovy, Scala and Python. Eclipse has users because it is "corporate", and free. Organizations , especially Java related ones, have basically made Eclipse the core tool. However IntelliJ IDEA has a much more vocal following mostly because it works better than Eclipse for them, and they have to pay for it. I use IntelliJ IDEA sometimes for Java, Groovy and Scala, and PyCharm sometimes for Python. (The IDE editors are still nowhere near as good as Emacs (and VIM), but IDEs are great for debugging. So I use Emacs most of the time for editing and the IDE in the rare occasions I actually have to debug.)

Interesting to note that Android has switched from Eclipse to IntelliJ IDEA as the base for the Android development platform.

I gave Mono-D a whirl, but as I don't do any C# or F#, it has brought in a huge amount of dependencies. My problem is I do not understand how the "Solution" system is the same or different to everyone else's "Project" system. I guess I do not have much enthusiasm to find out as I can just use Emacs.

> I vaguely remember seeing colleagues work with Visual$$ on
> Windoze and they looked happy and productive to me.
> For a reason: Visual$$ seems to serve quite nicely the needs and
> expectations of those developing on Windoze.

If Windows and (C or C++ or C# or F# or Python) then VisualStudio.
If Windows and Java then (Eclipse of IntelliJ IDEA)

So if D is to compete with C++ on Windows, a D plugin for Visual Studio has to be in place and enjoyably usable.

> For fairness sake:
> It's next to impossible to do the same (as Visual$$) on linux/BSD
> due to complexity and a fractured eco system. Gnome and QT/kde
> basically are religious issues and no matter which one one
> chooses one will have a large audience refusing it. Besides both
> are monstrous (and more often than not meet resistance or at the
> very minimum reluctance on the Windoze side). Fox and fltk are
> nice little thingies but not up to (todays) par lacking even
> functionality like printing. And so on.

GNOME vs. Qt may be religious to certain parties, but most people choose either GNOME or KDE for the desktop and then load the other widget set as well. I use GNOME but I have a many Qt-based things on here and indeed develop PySide and PyQt5 based systems since GNOME is a non-starter on Windows and OS X. Pragmatism is the order of the day here not religious fervour.

For Go I use the Eclipse Go perspective, but more usually LiteIDE which is a Qt-based system that works fine on GNOME – and OS X and Windows. wxWidgets used to be interesting but wxPython is not shifting to Python 3 so it is effectively dead. Phoenix is trying to create a Python 3 binding for wxWidgets but it is not finished yet. If it makes it then wxWidgets re-enters my use sphere.

I think that now that Qt has escaped from Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HNokia, it will return to being one of the two primary system for cross-platform GUI systems, wxWidgets being the other. Thus I think QtD (fot Qt4 and Qt5) should be seen as an essential component of the D milieu.  wxD should also get some presence. It is great we have GtkD, but I cannot see it ever having any cross-platform traction.

> That's quite regrettable, considering that we have a quite nice editor engine (Scintilla), quite good a debugger, and quite good compilers for pretty every language around.
> 
> That said, maybe my first reaction was too harsh. After all, it's
> not D's job to solve the linux gui troubles.
> Having GDC with GDB working and some editors and even IDEs more
> or less working with D, I see that I should walk back a little
> and agree with the proposal (of this thread).
> 
> A+ -R

-- 
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

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 01:03 +0100, Iain Buclaw wrote:
[…]
> 
> Both the C# specification ( http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm ) and the common language infrastructure (CLI)  ( http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm ) have been standardised for some time now, so that aspect is safe from Microsoft.   It is worth noting that not all C# modules are covered by CLI - such as the cryptography library.

Just because there are standards doesn't mean patent issues have gone away.  Most mobile phone technology is standardized but there are some patents that have to be licenced, supposedly on "frand" terms, but,… (cf. Apple vs. Motorola for a classic case of how to "game the system".)

Clearly though mobile phone technology involves hardware and hardware implemented software things so the patents tend to be real. In the software world patents are a nightmare, well in the USA anyway. Most countries such as UK (but not the EU, so you can get software patents in the UK :-( do not grant software patents. So the threats Microsoft have over C# and Mono are arguably not as real as the mobile phone ones, except in the USA.

Of course in the USA you are not allowed to use doubly-linked lists without paying royalties. http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US7028023
-- 
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

On 9/9/13 12:51 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 22:05 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> […]
>> This opens the door to other projects as well - e.g. emacs and vim
>> integration helpers.
>
> The Emacs mode stuff for D really needs to be in its own Git repository
> I believe.  MELPA automatically pulls the current repository to create
> the Emacs packages for people to install via the Emacs packaging system.
>
> Also the more stuff is in the main repository the less and less
> distributed the development of the various bits can be as only the
> gatekeepers can commit to the mainline.

I see no problem with making it a repo under the D-programming-language org.

Andrei

On Monday, 9 September 2013 at 08:29:44 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> ...
> If Windows and (C or C++ or C# or F# or Python) then VisualStudio.
> If Windows and Java then (Eclipse of IntelliJ IDEA)


I understand the point about Visual$. While I myself hardly know it, very many (quite possibly the majority) of programmers on Windoze use it and seem to be quite happy with it. That's reason enough for me to accept it.

This, however, is (to me) the really interesting point

> So if D is to compete with C++ on Windows, a D plugin for Visual Studio
> has to be in place and enjoyably usable.

Is it? Why compete? The only way to attracts large numbers of C++ developers is to become more and more like C++ (incl. of course, massive amounts of libraries and tools) and to end up as some kind of C+++.

Python is similar to - nothing (commonly used) - and yet it grew wildly. There are so many to complain about Python's weird indentation syntax. And yet they come and use it. Because it promises something tangible and it delivers. Because there is "the Python way". Because there excellent docs. And because there is no real competitor.
Had van Rossum tried to please the perl crowd, he might have attracted some more and quicker but today Python would be a small niche thingy nobody'd care much about.

I feel we should largely ignore C++. I feel that D is grossly inconsequent in a) - very smartly - aiming to be what C++ wanted to be and b) - not at all smartly - trying to please the C++ crowd and to mimick C++ up to the point of at least seriously considering mimicking leper and plague of C++, too.

D already *is* what C++ wanted to be, namely a more modern C with OO. D shouldn't measure itself against C++ but rather against what C++ wanted to be.

And there is another immensely important factor: reliability and safety.

This world gets ever more dependent on software - and software is ever more recognized as unreliable and insecure; hell, there is even an industry living from that (anti virus, anti-malware, etc, etc).

THAT's the sweet spot. To be what C++ wanted to be - plus - a strong focus on reliability and safety.

The Ada people are not stupid. There is a good reason for them to ponder a year or longer over a new keyword. Bertrand Meyer may have it implemented in a way that looks strange to many but that man isn't stupid at all. The lesson to learn from those two languages known for reliability? Have a tight definition and think long and hard before you make the slightest changes. And *always* keep your "guiding principles" in mind.


A+ -R