On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 21:58:16 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 20:21:56 UTC, aberba wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 17:36:11 UTC, kinke wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 16:08:47 UTC, aberba wrote:
>>>> It's an option but doesn't fill the need for an installer. Not sure why its hasn't been done.
>>>
>>> See https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/1754.
>>
>> From the discussions, it seems you still don't see the value of an installer...backing it with the idea that LDC is for "developers". I'm a developer myself and I use installers all the time when on Windows...there are very few people I personally know who would go for an archive file to set it up themselves.
>>
>> So not everyone is like you. The reason why I personally go for DMD over LDC is convenience (especially when introducing D to newbies)...even though LDC is more optimized for performance.
>>
>> Unless what you guys are doing is an artificial barrier to get others to not use it.
>
> Guys, all points have been made, there is no wrong and right here, let's stop arguing over this.
>
> What is needed is someone who thinks it is useful to have an exe installer and wants to do the work. It cannot be done by someone who thinks it is not useful, because there are decisions to be made (like which folder to install it in, whether to overwrite old or not), that can only be made by someone who actually cares about it. There is no point in trying to convince kinke or me.
>
> I'm sure noone will be against uploading the installer exe onto github release page once it's been made and checked.
>
> -Johan

Johan hits an important nail right on the head here.

While it is possible to design for others who are unlike you, it's much harder than designing for yourself or those who have similar values and priorities w.r.t. the thing in question. A lot of talk about "we (and by we I mean you) should do this thing I think is important" isn't pushing in the most productive direction, because

_*_*_{
even if one becomes convinced that there is value in something, that does not mean one has the relevant understanding necessary for good design of that thing
}_*_*_

Either the person with the problem works on understanding the tools to fix the problem, or the person with the tools works on understanding the problem. When values and "user experience" and "ease of use" are in play, I think the latter usually gets harder than normal, because understanding what will be easy or pleasing for others who are unlike us is not something everyone is good at.* This shifts the balance towards preferring the former approach where the person with the problem works towards doing at least a significant part of the design.** There will always be other considerations of course, this is just one force out of many.

This is not to say that developers shouldn't be thoughtful about their users - they definitely should be - but that doing a good job of that when the users are unlike the developer is _hard_.

* Perhaps in practice that ability is negatively associated with a strong sense of personal taste, e.g. great musicians writing the music _they_ want, not trying to specifically please people; the magic isn't that they understand other people, it's that their particular tastes resonate with others strongly. Maybe truly great mass-market businesses come from people who both have that magic _and_ a strong ability to experience their work from other's perspectives, the combination being rare and the ability to integrate the two effectively being even rarer (Steve Jobs comes to mind).

** Design and implementation often don't separate very cleanly in practice, so this probably means implementing it too, at least to proof-of-concept quality.

On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 20:09:58 UTC, aberba wrote:
> Supposing I'm new to D, I have previous experience with LLVM-based compilers so I prefer to use LDC. How am I supposed to know what to do? Where is the information on how to get it on my system through visualD installer?
>
> The LDC experience needs some improvement here.

Supposedly they will want an IDE with everything included in one installer, like Visual Studio, and that's what VisualD installer apparently does.

On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 18:01:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 20:09:58 UTC, aberba wrote:
>> Supposing I'm new to D, I have previous experience with LLVM-based compilers so I prefer to use LDC. How am I supposed to know what to do? Where is the information on how to get it on my system through visualD installer?
>>
>> The LDC experience needs some improvement here.
>
> Supposedly they will want an IDE with everything included in one installer, like Visual Studio, and that's what VisualD installer apparently does.

Not saying Kinke SHOULD do it. Was rather disagreeing with the idea that "developers" don't use installers. And that's a shortcoming with the LDC project...no straightforward way to set it up on Windows using an installer. If visuald supports LDC, why not point people to it.

LDC at its current state is a small fraction of DMD, why? Convenience. That's the core difference. And convenience sells.

And this is only a Windows problem ( started using Windows few weeks ago and now seeing devs don't provide an installer).

Now someone is going to tell me as always (I think its already said) to go do it myself. I don't really see it as a priority for me ATM as I know how to do without an installer. But just know that all successful languages have Windows installers I've found the need to use or try. Those that don't are niche and not ready for mass adoption simple because it easier to use something else that hacking your way out of a first impression.

Of course we have DMD.

Beginners, if you want an LDC installer then "Go do it yourself". I wouldn't consider that a good message.

On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 20:21:39 UTC, aberba wrote:

> Beginners, if you want an LDC installer then "Go do it yourself". I wouldn't consider that a good message.

Out of curiosity, what is the alternative message? Someone has to do it. This is a volunteer project, not a business, so there's not a manager that can put a couple guys on it.

On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 20:21:39 UTC, aberba wrote:
> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 18:01:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Not saying Kinke SHOULD do it. Was rather disagreeing with the idea that "developers" don't use installers. And that's a shortcoming with the LDC project...no straightforward way to set it up on Windows using an installer. If visuald supports LDC, why not point people to it.
>
> [...]

I agree with this. Not providing an installer gives the message that you're not that interested in people using it.

If I have the time later I can try to fix an installer.

On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 22:48:33 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 20:21:39 UTC, aberba wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 18:01:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Not saying Kinke SHOULD do it. Was rather disagreeing with the idea that "developers" don't use installers. And that's a shortcoming with the LDC project...no straightforward way to set it up on Windows using an installer. If visuald supports LDC, why not point people to it.
>>
>> [...]
>
> I agree with this. Not providing an installer gives the message that you're not that interested in people using it.

That's an exaggeration. Every release is accompanied by binaries that one may easily retrieve. Setting up the dependencies is only done once, and if you're a Windows developer, such an environment most likely exists, and you'll likely only have to add the bin to your path. It's my understanding that there are few people regularly working on LDC; allocating (voluntary!) manpower to a nice but non-essential component doesn't seem wise.

On Saturday, 24 October 2020 at 00:00:02 UTC, starcanopy wrote:
> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 22:48:33 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 20:21:39 UTC, aberba wrote:
>>> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 18:01:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Not saying Kinke SHOULD do it. Was rather disagreeing with the idea that "developers" don't use installers. And that's a shortcoming with the LDC project...no straightforward way to set it up on Windows using an installer. If visuald supports LDC, why not point people to it.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> I agree with this. Not providing an installer gives the message that you're not that interested in people using it.
>
> That's an exaggeration. Every release is accompanied by binaries that one may easily retrieve. Setting up the dependencies is only done once, and if you're a Windows developer, such an environment most likely exists, and you'll likely only have to add the bin to your path. It's my understanding that there are few people regularly working on LDC; allocating (voluntary!) manpower to a nice but non-essential component doesn't seem wise.

Yes, but if you want to spread D to the world, you might have to lower the effort in using it as much as possible.

Ok, I'm comparing to the experience of like top 20 languages, sure. But why not dream big ey? 🚀

On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 18:01:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 20:09:58 UTC, aberba wrote:
>> Supposing I'm new to D, I have previous experience with LLVM-based compilers so I prefer to use LDC. How am I supposed to know what to do? Where is the information on how to get it on my system through visualD installer?
>>
>> The LDC experience needs some improvement here.
>
> Supposedly they will want an IDE with everything included in one installer, like Visual Studio, and that's what VisualD installer apparently does.

How about this then?

https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/3598

On Sunday, 25 October 2020 at 13:59:44 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 18:01:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 20:09:58 UTC, aberba wrote:
>>> Supposing I'm new to D, I have previous experience with LLVM-based compilers so I prefer to use LDC. How am I supposed to know what to do? Where is the information on how to get it on my system through visualD installer?
>>>
>>> The LDC experience needs some improvement here.
>>
>> Supposedly they will want an IDE with everything included in one installer, like Visual Studio, and that's what VisualD installer apparently does.
>
> How about this then?
>
> https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/3598

👍

On Saturday, 24 October 2020 at 00:00:02 UTC, starcanopy wrote:
> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 22:48:33 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 20:21:39 UTC, aberba wrote:
>>> On Friday, 23 October 2020 at 18:01:19 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Not saying Kinke SHOULD do it. Was rather disagreeing with the idea that "developers" don't use installers. And that's a shortcoming with the LDC project...no straightforward way to set it up on Windows using an installer. If visuald supports LDC, why not point people to it.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> I agree with this. Not providing an installer gives the message that you're not that interested in people using it.
>
> That's an exaggeration. Every release is accompanied by binaries that one may easily retrieve. Setting up the dependencies is only done once, and if you're a Windows developer, such an environment most likely exists, and you'll likely only have to add the bin to your path. It's my understanding that there are few people regularly working on LDC; allocating (voluntary!) manpower to a nice but non-essential component doesn't seem wise.

You underestimate how spoiled windows developer are. Even these simple step are completely out of character for most software on the platform. 20 years ago it wasn't a problem, now on Windows 10 it's a whole other story. How many clicks to get the dialog to set PATH? On NT4 it was 2 clicks, now on Windows 10 I still haven't figured out how to do it without searching like a madman.

To make it short. The Windows platform is getting more and more hostile to manual tuning.