On 2/10/14, 6:24 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
> No, I don't think it is only a matter of resources. For instance, if I
> had the time

Oh, the unbelievable irony.

Andrei

On 2/10/14, 3:24 PM, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 10 February 2014 at 23:15:35 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Taking a look at
>> https://www.bountysource.com/trackers/383571-d-programming-language,
>> however, reveals that there's little attention to those bugs, in SPITE
>> of the fact that contributions on HARDER problems on the SAME project
>> continued as furiously as ever, if not more.
>
> Interesting, I had directly the opposite impression when went through
> the bountysource list. Lot of issues have pull requests provided but are
> stalled because of slow feedback cycle.

Same difference. A bunch of people can pull, I'm hardly the bottleneck. It just means I failed to convince the community to get those bounties done.

Andrei

"Xavier Bigand"  wrote in message news:ldbohi$1ohh$1@digitalmars.com...
> Boostrapping D, will certainly reveal some issue with GC? I don't know much about compilers, but certainly the parser may see some performance gains with GC and the other parts? Maybe some major loose?

The parser allocates lots of memory without freeing any (the entire parsed ast), so a GC cannot possibly be an improvement there over the current strategy of C++ new + never delete.

DDMD has predictably shown that there is a performance hit, even with collections disabled, compared with the highly tuned allocator used in the C++ version.

The big plus of a GC for the compiler is that now ctfe is much less likely to cause the compiler to run out of memory, as all the temporary objects generated while interpreting will be garbage collected. 

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 02:15:37 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/10/14, 6:24 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
>> No, I don't think it is only a matter of resources. For instance, if I
>> had the time
>
> Oh, the unbelievable irony.

Not really. If you have too many outstanding issues it means you have added to many features. It means you failed to do feature freeze at an earlier stage.

It could also mean that you don't give priority to mentoring. Sometimes it is better to let your best people do mentoring and help bringing "master level students" up to speed.

People are not loyal to a project. People are loyal to other people. If a mentor invests time in you, you will feel a social debt. This is the principle of gifting.

You can create a strategy for mentoring. One obvious one is to focus on making the code base suitable for academia. Then you can offer supervision of master students. Academics love to have good external supervisors taking some load off their backs. That means lowering the requirements for compilation speed in order to get in some high level optimization and other features that you cannot otherwise have.

You can give priority to getting in support for more social bonding between developers, like give priority to an IDE that supports CSCW style collaboration (seeing the code view of others). With Skype that could make pair programming (from XP) possible.

There are many options.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 00:25:35 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> There you go ad hominem again.
>
> You really need to avoid this ad hominem stuff… You see, as a hardcore roleplayer I could be tempted to switch over into a sarcastic mode. And that would not be fair to you. ;-)

Ok, I'm a bit fed up by your attitude so I'll express a personal opinion now: it seems to me that when people express any kind of judgment, it's ad hominem against you. When you express judgment, is not ad hominem, it's the fruit of some kind of analysis you made.
You know that "ad hominem" doesn't mean "I disagree with you", right?

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 09:42:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 02:15:37 UTC, Andrei

Hi Ola, as a clever guy who says he has studied project dynamics you must understand that for everyone else here it feels like you dropped into the forums from outer space, confidently asserted your strong (usually well informed) opinion about this and that all over the place and now it seems you expect the project leaders to jump. Well, you should realise that until you actually start contributing code rather just talking, it feels very pushy. There are very clever people here who have spent years contributing spare time to the code and so their opinion will always carry more weight.  Andrei, who displays remarkable tolerance on these boards, momentarily lost his rag a bit with you and now you're threating to bring out your sarcasm super-powers - a strange way to win friends and influence people.

You've obviously got a lot to offer but picking fights with Andrei is highly conuter productive.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 12:09:23 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
> just talking, it feels very pushy. There are very clever people here who have spent years contributing spare time to the code and so their opinion will always carry more weight.

I don't mind if it feels pushy. If they are pushy, it means there is something to it that you don't want to see.

I am not forcing anyone to follow opinions or read them. I want to know where this project is heading.

Is it heading in a real-time direction, or not?

> You've obviously got a lot to offer but picking fights with Andrei is highly conuter productive.

I did not pick a fight with him. He picked a fight with me.

I am sorry, but I don't accept ad hominem. If people do that, I stand up to it. Whether is on my own behalf or on the behalf of others. If people keep doing it after being warned it is at sometimes better to drive the point home with whatever means the medium offers.

It is not counter productive, I got a lot of information out of this:

1. There is no plan.

2. The main reason of slow moving is on the management side. (Bounties is not a solution, in fact they can be demotivational).

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 09:55:09 UTC, Francesco Cattoglio wrote:
> Ok, I'm a bit fed up by your attitude so I'll express a personal opinion now: it seems to me that when people express any kind of judgment, it's ad hominem against you.

You either respond to assertions about technology or ignore it. The moment you address the person and not the argument you are going in the wrong direction.

Making an analysis of project as an artifact is not "ad hominem", even if the creator of the artifact strongly disagrees with the analysis. If the creator dislike the analysis, ignore it. If the creator thinks it is interesting, respond to it.

It is neither friendly or unfriendly.
It is usually not necessary, because most projects are pretty clear on where they are heading.
I the case of D, it is not clear.

It is not clear if there is enough momentum in the D community to sustain a real-time D either.

These "debates" make the fog less thick so one can see possible directions for D. Which is a combination of management and the willingness of the D community to "be vocal about real time issues". Being complacent and meek is not going to change the direction of D.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 12:47:01 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Making an analysis of project as an artifact is not "ad hominem"
Expressing an opinion on your knowledge of a subject is not "ad hominem" either. A few posts ago, Manu wrote "I don't think you have made a game" = "I don't think you have the same amound of knowledge of the game industry". That is not ad hominem.

You think that Andrei telling you to "do something" is "ad hominem". Again, it's not. He is just stating that sometimes talking is not enough. If you really care about knowing how many people are interested in getting a runtime D, open a voting pool somewhere on the internet, link it in a proper thread in the announce section, and try to see what results you get, try to interpret them and so on.
If you believe the people here can achieve something great, you should try to help coordinating the community. It's true that we lack organization basics. Are you knowledgeable about the subject? Are you interested in helping the community? If your answer is "yes" to bot questions, than you should really do something, and I talking about non-coding stuff. Being a top contributor is not a requirement for helping in a tangible way.

> I the case of D, it is not clear.
>
> It is not clear if there is enough momentum in the D community to sustain a real-time D either.
It's a community effort. AA and WB are not leaders in the strict sense. As I already told you, if you want to contribute by helping coordinating efforts, I think all of us would be really happy about that.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 02:29:49 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Same difference. A bunch of people can pull, I'm hardly the bottleneck. It just means I failed to convince the community to get those bounties done.
>
> Andrei

Still that list (people with pull rights) is relatively short so it does not make much sense to appeal to wider auditory.

Also I don't think volunteer effort can't be organized. It is a matter of people identifying themselves as part of well-defined organization as opposed to independent crowd of collaborators. It is a common wisdom that if no one feels directly responsible for an issue, no one will ever pay attention to it.

Do you need any specific proposals?