On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:01:03 +0000
Dicebot via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 09:31:28 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 09:07:53 +0000
> > uri via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You were looking forward to that, in fact I'd say trolling for it...
> > that's not the first time i asking why bugzilla is still able
> > to host
> > patches. i just wanted to make myself sure that "any input is
> > valuable"
> > is blatant lies. one last time.
> 
> The fact it is valuable does not mean it is not a second class citizen. Valuable but less valuable. But you would never accept the reality that doesn't justify your rants, right?
nope. i'm accepting the fact that D is doomed to be a toy, which ocasionally used here and there. i tried to fight with this, but this fight is lost before it's started. and now i surrender.

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 10:11:37 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> nope. i'm accepting the fact that D is doomed to be a toy, which
> ocasionally used here and there. i tried to fight with this, but this
> fight is lost before it's started. and now i surrender.

Very true.
This community doesn't invite contributions. They are happy to run around throwing in ideas for you to implement, but nobody will take your code and improve upon it. With this in mind, if I ever find some piece of functionality missing in Phobos, I'll write a simple implementation for myself, but will never bother to make a pull request (where I'll hear that not using pure-const-nothrow-safe all over the place is a sign of an unbeliever, and thus I'm not allowed in their circles; sorry, exaggerating a bit).

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 10:24:38 UTC, Artem Tarasov wrote:
> On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 10:11:37 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> nope. i'm accepting the fact that D is doomed to be a toy, which
>> ocasionally used here and there. i tried to fight with this, but this
>> fight is lost before it's started. and now i surrender.
>
> Very true.
> This community doesn't invite contributions. They are happy to run around throwing in ideas for you to implement, but nobody will take your code and improve upon it. With this in mind, if I ever find some piece of functionality missing in Phobos, I'll write a simple implementation for myself, but will never bother to make a pull request (where I'll hear that not using pure-const-nothrow-safe all over the place is a sign of an unbeliever, and thus I'm not allowed in their circles; sorry, exaggerating a bit).

Taking code of someone else and improving it will generally take more time than writing one of my own from scratch that will conform to all strict requirements contributing to standard library / compiler implies. That is exactly why such contribution is second-class (probably even third-class) citizen - it is simply too far away effort-wise from something that can be used.

Contributing something new to C++ standard library - now THAT is hard :) In D is simply a matter of willingness to do a quality effort, something any regular contributor will gladly help with as long as there is that willingness.

Unfortunately people often underestimate the gap between solution that "works good enough for me" and "work good enough for everyone using stdlib". std.experimental.logger is a pretty good example of how many concerns one needs to address to actually get there. And if you are not willing to spend that much effort doing personal implementations is just fine and expected.

Really I have a hard time imagining any open source project with quality control were contributing upstream would be less demanding.

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 08:54:24 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:19:01 +1100
> Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> "ketmar via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message news:mailman.3160.1418550079.9932.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>> 
>> > but talking seriously, i don't need any bounty, i just want somebody to
>> > take a look at that and either tell me what to fix or integrate it in
>> > mainline. along with this one: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13526
>> 
>> Review of patches for dmd are done on github: http://wiki.dlang.org/Pull_Requests#Create_a_pull_request
> so DON'T ALLOW THE FUCKIN' BUGZILLA TO HOST PATCHES!

The attachment feature is useful (and is used) for listing large test-cases, stack traces etc. It is not an exclusive feature for patches.

What part of http://wiki.dlang.org/Get_involved and related pages weren't clear to you, such that even after being told about github being the chosen method you still decided that the "(proposed patch, testcase, etc.)" text by the issues.dlang.org "Add an attachment" link superseded it all!

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 10:37:23 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> it is simply too far away effort-wise from something that can be used.
>
> Contributing something new to C++ standard library - now THAT is hard :) In D is simply a matter of willingness to do a quality effort, something any regular contributor will gladly help with as long as there is that willingness.

Fair point. The trouble I have with D in particular is its definition of 'quality'. For example, I'm unable to consider THIS 'quality effort': hhttps://github.com/tom-tan/phobos/commit/c7e99d9baff0749dfb334db322c5471b21a2539d - it's simply fighting with the unintelligent compiler.

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 10:52:04 UTC, Artem Tarasov wrote:
> On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 10:37:23 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> it is simply too far away effort-wise from something that can be used.
>>
>> Contributing something new to C++ standard library - now THAT is hard :) In D is simply a matter of willingness to do a quality effort, something any regular contributor will gladly help with as long as there is that willingness.
>
> Fair point. The trouble I have with D in particular is its definition of 'quality'. For example, I'm unable to consider THIS 'quality effort': hhttps://github.com/tom-tan/phobos/commit/c7e99d9baff0749dfb334db322c5471b21a2539d - it's simply fighting with the unintelligent compiler.

Quality != pretty. Ideally the compiler would be perfect, but it's not, so in the mean time you do what you can to provide the best quality package to phobos users.

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 10:52:04 UTC, Artem Tarasov wrote:
> Fair point. The trouble I have with D in particular is its definition of 'quality'. For example, I'm unable to consider THIS 'quality effort': hhttps://github.com/tom-tan/phobos/commit/c7e99d9baff0749dfb334db322c5471b21a2539d - it's simply fighting with the unintelligent compiler.

For standard library quality means not only robustness of implementation itself but also taking delicate care of things like backwards compatibility and hiding as much pain as possible from the end user. All the @safe commits fall in the latter domain - it may expose deficiency in compiler / language definition (or both) but waiting until better compiler is not something Phobos users would appreciate.

Though speaking specifically about @safe it is exactly the very point of standard library runtime to contain such weird hacks - so that user code can totally avoid resorting to those. Many workarounds are because of compiler deficiency indeed but   still many are expected and needed.

By the way this specific commit looks suspicious to me :) Wrapping whole functions (other than extern(C)) in @trusted is rarely a good idea. But I haven't been reviewing Phobos pulls for last ~2 months so don't know the context.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:47:29 +0000
John Colvin via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> The attachment feature is useful (and is used) for listing large test-cases, stack traces etc. It is not an exclusive feature for patches.
i don't ever talked about disabling attaches. but there is no sense to allow attaching *PATCHES*.

> What part of http://wiki.dlang.org/Get_involved and related pages weren't clear to you, such that even after being told about github being the chosen method you still decided that the "(proposed patch, testcase, etc.)" text by the issues.dlang.org "Add an attachment" link superseded it all!
that is overall D attitude: "don't look at what we wrote here, look at what we wrote there! sure, you HAVE to go there first, and we will not give you any handly links. and than we'll blame you for using our tools as we wrote in that tools, 'cause you must use that tools as we wrote outside of that tools. and we blame you for don't reading something that is not even linked from inside our tool. and we will not fix it and blame you again, 'cause it's fun and we never fixing 'cosmetic issues' anyway."

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 11:09:49 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:47:29 +0000
> John Colvin via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> The attachment feature is useful (and is used) for listing large test-cases, stack traces etc. It is not an exclusive feature for patches.
> i don't ever talked about disabling attaches. but there is no sense to
> allow attaching *PATCHES*.
>
>> What part of http://wiki.dlang.org/Get_involved and related pages weren't clear to you, such that even after being told about github being the chosen method you still decided that the "(proposed patch, testcase, etc.)" text by the issues.dlang.org "Add an attachment" link superseded it all!
> that is overall D attitude: "don't look at what we wrote here, look at
> what we wrote there! sure, you HAVE to go there first, and we will not
> give you any handly links. and than we'll blame you for using our tools
> as we wrote in that tools, 'cause you must use that tools as we wrote
> outside of that tools. and we blame you for don't reading something
> that is not even linked from inside our tool. and we will not fix it
> and blame you again, 'cause it's fun and we never fixing 'cosmetic
> issues' anyway."

hey ketmar.

first of all, judging by your language, you don't seem like a guy who follows guidelines. why are you even complaining if it's written here or there?

secondly, can i please open a github account for you and hand it to you? it'll only follow d-programming-language on github. you won't be dealing with any shit. [0]

[0] that's also what's gonna happen when you sign up yourself.

p.s. i know i have your sympathy because of my all lower-case writing despite the hate we get. :-)

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:27:30 +0000
Mengu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> first of all, judging by your language, you don't seem like a guy who follows guidelines. why are you even complaining if it's written here or there?
'cause i see something strange in blaming me for doing exactly what was written.

the whole thing is about that "cosmetic issues" (not only with bugzilla) which nobody counts as issues at all. it's like a man who never took a bath: he can be genious, but i don't want to talk with him long enough to find that. such inconsistencies ("cosmetic issues") is what building D public image. i got a hard time to convince some of my mates that language where consistency is in the form of consistenly ignoring "cosmetic issues" good enough to use for something serious. "they can't fix such simple things, and now you telling me that i have to believe they are better at everything other? BS!"

> secondly, can i please open a github account for you and hand it to you? it'll only follow d-programming-language on github. you won't be dealing with any shit. [0]
github == shit, that's it. once i was excited about it, i even participated in "closed beta" before public github launch. but now i don't want to be the part of github in any form, and i have my reasons for it.

but the thing is not about github per se, as i already written.

> p.s. i know i have your sympathy because of my all lower-case writing despite the hate we get. :-)
it's a great factor! ;-) but i'm not really hateful, i'm rather annoyed. i have some expirience with projects that failed to outgrow "funny toy" niche, and each one of them has the same problems with consistency and "cosmetic issues". i was trying to sell D to some people and failed. not because some issues with C++ interop or even documentation, but 'cause "that language smells. it's great, but it looks like they trying to pretend that they have same amout of legacy code as C++ has and using that as an excuse to not fix the annoyances. sorry, we can't see why quirky language without libraries is better than quirky language with libraries, despite all the meta-power of the former."

so i'm not hateful. actually, it's exactly opposite: i do care about D and want it to succeed. that's why i'm so passionate about some things. i can't talk about anything, so i chose to talk about the thing that bites me *each* *time* i trying to go "D way". i don't have resources to fork D (and i don't want to do that, 'cause i don't believe that having a spectrum of incompatible Ds will do any good), so i trying to do what i believe is good. and it's not about my patches being ignored, this is the last thing i care of.