On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 23:04:09 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 20:44:57 UTC, Jerry wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 19:10:50 UTC, bauss wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 18:59:21 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 1 November 2017 at 18:42:07 UTC, Bo wrote:
>>>>> There is a issue with Windows. The whole attacking the messenger, the whole idiotic argumentation's that Windows is dying, it is all pure useless trolling the people who ask a simple questions: How to solve the D 64bit issue so that like on the Linux or OSx platform, the users can have the SAME level of consistency.
>>>>
>>>> Windows 32 bit is the special one - it is the ONLY platform where D works out of the box without additional downloads. That's one reason why I advocate it for just playing around - it just works.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes i works when toying around, but as soon as you want to write actual software then you can't write 32 bit anymore, because OPTLINK is just too buggy and will end up not being able to link your code correctly.
>>>
>>> A good example is that mysql-native currently don't link properly with OPTLINK. It might link for some, but at least for me; I'm forced to either use an older compiler or compile to 64 bit.
>>>
>>> See:
>>> https://github.com/mysql-d/mysql-native/issues/100
>>>
>>> There's also reported issues like this one:
>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15183
>>>
>>> I'm aware that issues like these should be reported more often and as soon as they're discovered, but they're also hard to report, because you get virtually no information about what's wrong and you can only guess by commenting out sections of your code until it will link.
>>>
>>> That's not ideal.
>>>
>>> I'm sure many other similar issues exists.
>>>
>>> Yes, 32 bit development with D is easy on Windows, but only for toying around; which is no reason to defend it.
>>
>> You can use -m32mscoff for 32-bit, which uses Visual Studio like the 64-bit version. I've been saying OPTLINK should be removed. Even if you report a bug for optlink, it's never going to get fixed. No one's stupid enough to go digging through that spaghetti code dump. If you're luck, some limitation might introduced to DMD that won't cause the bug in OPTLINK to trigger. That's why it shouldn't be supported anymore, it's hindering DMD, not making it better.
>>
>> It's amazing how many people are so lazy to download Visual Studio, and some of the stupidest reason for not wanting to download it to boot.
>
> It's not that people don't want to get Visual Studio, but some people have limited space.
>
> Ex. until a few months ago I was actually developing all my stuff on a Windows tablet which only had 30gb of space (The OS etc. also took of those 30 gb.) It would have been impossible for me to get Visual Studio on it, at least if I wanted to use it for anything else.
>
> Of course it's not a problem for me at the moment as I have a laptop, but at the time it was the only thing I had. At least I didn't get by any bugs in OPTLINK back then, else it would have been impossible for me to actually write D code.

Well a tablet isn't really for development. Even a cheap laptop would be better for development. You can't really do much of anything with that little space. I don't think the focus should be people with niche development hardware like tablets. If you do enough CTFE the RAM usage of DMD shoots through the roof and you'd end up not having enough RAM to compile anyways. Let alone if you have enough ram but still use the 32-bit version of DMD and hit that limit.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 00:09:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> But frankly, I don't think many giants would start with a GPL code base like Linux.

Redhat have demonstrated that it can be done. GPL is not the obstacle. The obstacle is the desire to control/dominate a market. There, GPL will do you harm, because you are required to release your source code changes back to the community - and hence your competitors.

That's the only reason why there's no Microsoft Linux.

Oracle is another giant with their 'own' rebranded Linux - they basically took Redhat's stuff... but even then, it was only so they could tie you into their proprietory solutions.

Microsoft are porting stuff to Linux too, perhaps for the same reason. (SQL Server for Linux? A few years ago I would have laughed if someone said that would ever happen).

But giants are starting to see that GPL can actually be utilised in their desire to dominate after all, because they can insert their proprietary stuff into it, and so 'domination' is still apparently attainable - even with GPL. And after all, it saves them the trouble of having to write/maintain an operating system.

GPL is not a problem. GPL was specifically designed to benefit 'everyone'.

The desire to dominate with proprietory closed source products is the problem - because it benefits who?

Having said all that, I'm still very much an advocate of the BSD style licence ;-)

On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 20:44:57 UTC, Jerry wrote:
> It's amazing how many people are so lazy to download Visual Studio, and some of the stupidest reason for not wanting to download it to boot.

It has nothing to do with lazyness. If you're behind a proxy that abomination of a installer of Visual Studio doesn't work. I tried several times, offline and online setup, read the Studio forums. Studio 2017 installer doesn't work inside our environment at work (EU Commission). Might be an issue with our infrastructure but it's unlikely as I managed to install a lot of things before.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 01:13:00 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 00:09:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Redhat have demonstrated that it can be done. GPL is not the obstacle. The obstacle is the desire to control/dominate a market. There, GPL will do you harm, because you are required to release your source code changes back to the community - and hence your competitors.
>
> [...]
And it didn't preclude Google to dominate the smartphone market. Android kernel IS Linux kernel.

On Monday, 6 November 2017 at 08:33:16 UTC, Joakim wrote:

>
> The vast majority of users would be covered by 5-10 GBs of available storage, which is why the lowest tier of even the luxury iPhone was 16 GBs until last year.  Every time I talk to normal people, ie non-techies unlike us, and ask them how much storage they have in their device, whether smartphone, tablet, or laptop, they have no idea.  If I look in the device, I inevitably find they're only using something like 3-5 GBs max, out of the 20-100+ GBs they have available.

You are making an assumption that people want as much storage for a combo phone/PC as they do for only a phone. You need to also check how much storage they are using on their PCs.


>>
>> I never made any previous claim about what IDEs are being used. The only time I previously mentioned an IDE was with regard to RemObjects and Embarcadero offering cross-compilation to Android/iOS with their products.
>>
>> "There is a case to be made for supporting  Android/iOS cross-compilation. But it doesn't have to come at the expense of Windows 64-bit integration. Not sure they even involve the same skillsets. Embarcadero and Remobjects both now support Android/iOS development from their Windows (and macOS in the case of Remobjects) IDEs."
>>
>> That was to highlight that those two compiler companies have seen fit to also cross-compile to mobile - they saw an importance to mobile development. It wasn't about what IDEs are best for mobile or even what IDEs are being used for mobile.
>
> If you look back to the first mention of IDES, it was your statement, "Good luck selling game developers on using D to develop for Android, when you can't supply those same game developers a top-notch development environment for the premier platform for performance critical games - Windows 64-bit."
>
> That at least implies that they're using the same IDE to target both mobile and PC gaming, which is what I was disputing.  If you agree that they use completely different toolchains, then it is irrelevant whether D supports Windows-focused IDEs, as it doesn't affect mobile-focused devs.

My statements quoted didn't mention IDEs and they didn't imply IDEs. What was implied was the initial line in the first post "* better dll support for Windows". My assumption is that game developers (or just developers) work on multiple OSes. If you want them to use a language - like D - they should find it compelling to use on all their platforms.



>
> I've always thought that flat Metro interface was best suited for mobile displays, the easiest to view, render, and touch.  To some extent, all the other mobile interfaces have copied it, with their move to flat UIs over the years.  However, it obviously takes much more than a nice GUI to do well in mobile.

I don't know what a flat UI is, but every mobile OS I have used - Blackberry 9/10, Nokia Symbian, Nokia Linux, Palm OS, WebOS, Firefox OS, iOS, Android - all have the same essential interface. Icons on a scrolling desktop. Windows 8/10 Mobile, with the resizable live tiles is the only one that does the interface differently, and in my opinion, does it the best.


>
>>>> Why did they fund development of a new iMac Pro which is coming this December as well as the new MacBook Pros that came out this June? That's a contradiction of "milk it like an iPod".
>>>
>>> Because their userbase was rebelling?  I take it you're not that familiar with Mac users, but they were genuinely scared that Apple was leaving them behind, since they weren't refreshing Mac and Macbooks much anymore and all Apple's focus is on iOS:
>>
>> So, let them rebel. You said that they would like to see it go away, and/or they want to milk it. If you have to spend money on development to keep selling it, then you can't "milk it".
>
> You and I and Jobs may've let them rebel, but Apple is a public corporation.  They can't just let easy money go, their shareholders may not like it. Perhaps you're not too familiar with legacy calculations, but they're probably still making good money off Macs, but it just distracts and keeps good Apple devs off the real cash cow, iPhone.  Even if the Mac financials aren't _that_ great anymore, you don't necessarily want to piss off your oldest and most loyal customers, who may stop buying iPhones and iPads too.

It would either be you and Jobs, or just you, letting them rebel. I would keep the line. The large Apple profit comes from offering quality products and then pricing them at the highest gross profit margin in the industry. In order to get people to pay a premium for their products it helps to have a mystique or following, and the macOS line helps to maintain their mystique and it is small potatoes next to their phone business.

On 11/1/2017 11:42 AM, Bo wrote:
> And frankly, Walter or whoever, there needed to have been put a stop to this anti Windows bullshit several days ago. As long as people use this level of disrespect towards community members because they are not using the "right" platform.

Don't worry, Windows remains a high priority platform for D.

In the not-so-long run, all the platforms are dead. Little to none of D will work on any platform prior to 10 years ago or so. D needs to run on the major platforms of today, and that certainly includes Windows.

Nobody is obliged to work on any platform they don't want to work on. And nobody is entitled to berate anyone for working on any platform they want to.

On 11/1/2017 11:59 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> Windows 32 bit is the special one - it is the ONLY platform where D works out of the box without additional downloads. That's one reason why I advocate it for just playing around - it just works.

Yay Digital Mars C++ :-)

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 07:33:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Nobody is obliged to work on any platform they don't want to work on. And nobody is entitled to berate anyone for working on any platform they want to.

Yeah...right on..!

btw. Windows XP is still the best o/s I ever 'owned'. Credit where credit is due.

I think we should all just hug..and start using FreeBSD.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 06:27:15 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 01:13:00 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 00:09:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Redhat have demonstrated that it can be done. GPL is not the obstacle. The obstacle is the desire to control/dominate a market. There, GPL will do you harm, because you are required to release your source code changes back to the community - and hence your competitors.
>>
>> [...]
> And it didn't preclude Google to dominate the smartphone market. Android kernel IS Linux kernel.

The Android kernel on Android is an heavily customized fork of Linux and probably the only GPL component left on the AOSP source tree, now that GCC has been replaced by clang, just like Apple did on their SDKs.

Fuchsia has zero GPL components on it.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 00:09:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 at 19:46:04 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> Not at all, it makes things easier certainly, but there's a reason why mobile devs always test on the actual devices, because there are real differences.
>
> Mostly with low level stuff in my experience.

And what experience would that be?  I've admitted I've never developed for Apple platforms, but my understanding is that even leaving aside the completely different touch-first UI, there are significant differences.  I wonder what Mac apps you simply ported the UI over to iPhone and they just worked.

>> Now, they're not going to dump 10-15% of sales because the Mac's a fading business, they'll just keep milking it till it doesn't make any sense, as I already said.
>
> Heh, it would be very bad management to take focus off Macs. I doubt Jobs would have allowed that to happen, but as I said, I don't really trust the current management at Apple. So who knows what they will do?

I just said they're not going to dump it, so I don't know why you're going on about that.  If you mean their current lessened investment is not a good idea, it's because the old desktop OS doesn't matter as much, which is the whole point of this thread.

> You are thinking too much short term here IMHO. The mobile sector is rather volatile.

I have no idea what this refers to: you have a bad habit of adding asides without any explation or non sequiturs, so that we're left stumped as to what you're talking about.

>> Maybe I'm just very adaptable, but I've increasingly come to the conclusion that smaller works fine, especially with the extremely high ppi on mobile displays these days.
>
> Small tablets are ok, for reading, but programming really requires more screen space. Although I guess one external + the builtin one is ok too.

Some will use the small tablet screen like me, many a 11-13" laptop shell like Sentio, and a few a dock like DeX to connect the monitor of their choice.

> I guess it would be possible to create a docking station for phones that was able to transfer heat away from the device so that you could run at higher speed when docked, but then the phone calls and you have to unplug it or use a headset…

I've been using a tablet to compile code for years now, never had a problem with heat.  The power budget on these mobile chips is already limited, as they don't have a fan, such that you don't have to worry about that.  That limits your performance of course, but the point is that most don't compile code or do anything close, so it doesn't matter for them.

As for phone calls, I noted earlier in this thread that some already use cheap bluetooth handsets with their phablet, not a headset.

>> multi-window UIs built in, which as I said before is starting to happen with Android 7.0 Nougat.
>
> I should take a closer look on modern Android… Sounds interesting.

I've linked it a handful of times in this forum, including the other mobile thread I originally linked:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/android-7-0-nougat-review-do-more-on-your-gigantic-smartphone/3/#h2

Samsung appears to use it for their DeX dock:

https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-dex-pc-replacement-778222/

>> happened.  MS, Nokia, and others linked in this thread clearly thought as you did about mobile, yet they completely missed the boat.  Clearly they misjudged the scale, scope, and timing of that coming mobile tidal wave.
>
> Yes, but as I said, not many players could have countered this. Microsoft certainly if they had bought up Nokia right away. Nokia alone… probably not. HP or Sony? On a lucky day…

I see, so your claim is that MS, Nokia, HP, Sony, all much larger companies than Apple or google at the time, could not have countered them even on a lucky day.  I wonder why this is, as they certainly had more money, you don't believe they're that bright? :)

>> Yes, Apple made a big push, _at the right time_, while everybody else didn't.  Google and Samsung followed fast, to their credit, while everybody else fell to the wayside.
>
> Well, but Android units did get a bad reputation in beginning.

Again, I have no idea what this refers to or what point you're trying to make here.

>> A good example for what?  They started a mobile OS from nothing and grew it to two billion-plus users today, which you implied only those with a "starting point" could do.
>
> The Android makers had a real problem with quality and making a profit. Samsung managed to make a profit, but many others struggled. And it took a long time before Android's reputation caught up with iOS. Most businesses would not have been willing to make that software investment and sustain it until the OS platform would reach a competitive level.

Yet the businesses that did build Android, ie google, HTC, and so on, were much smaller than the corporate behemoths like HP or Sony that you claimed above couldn't do it.  Your claims about who could or couldn't do it make absolutely no sense.

> So I don't think many could have followed Apple there. Apple recycled a lot of their prior work and experiences. Microsoft could have, sure, and I am sure they regret getting in late. But, they were late with embracing Internet too, so they have always followed their own mindset… and only reluctantly follow new trends.

As I've linked earlier, MS had already got in early, around 2001 with their Tablet PC platform and 2003 with Windows Mobile:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile

Their problem was likely that they got in too early and got discouraged, not that they were "getting in late."

> But frankly, I don't think many giants would start with a GPL code base like Linux.

As I pointed out above, that may be changing with their developing a non-GPL alternative called Fuchsia now.  Maybe they just grabbed linux because it was already built and they were in a hurry, and now plan to remedy that mistake.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 00:49:36 UTC, Jerry wrote:
> Well a tablet isn't really for development. Even a cheap laptop would be better for development. You can't really do much of anything with that little space. I don't think the focus should be people with niche development hardware like tablets. If you do enough CTFE the RAM usage of DMD shoots through the roof and you'd end up not having enough RAM to compile anyways. Let alone if you have enough ram but still use the 32-bit version of DMD and hit that limit.

This is a big problem for MS and Windows, as I've been developing D just fine on an Android tablet with 16 GB storage.  You can do the same by installing the Termux app for Android and running a single command:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.termux&hl=en
https://wiki.dlang.org/Build_D_for_Android#Native_compilation_2

If you require heavy-duty hardware to develop software, there go all the entry-level devs who cannot afford the more expensive stuff and will get going on Android instead.  This isn't going to bite Windows tomorrow or even next year, but it will get them eventually.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 07:04:24 UTC, Tony wrote:
> On Monday, 6 November 2017 at 08:33:16 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>
>>
>> The vast majority of users would be covered by 5-10 GBs of available storage, which is why the lowest tier of even the luxury iPhone was 16 GBs until last year.  Every time I talk to normal people, ie non-techies unlike us, and ask them how much storage they have in their device, whether smartphone, tablet, or laptop, they have no idea.  If I look in the device, I inevitably find they're only using something like 3-5 GBs max, out of the 20-100+ GBs they have available.
>
> You are making an assumption that people want as much storage for a combo phone/PC as they do for only a phone. You need to also check how much storage they are using on their PCs.

You need to read what I actually wrote, I was talking about laptops too.  I don't go to people's homes and check their desktops, but their laptops fall under the same low-storage umbrella, and laptops are 80% of PCs sold these days.

>>> I never made any previous claim about what IDEs are being used. The only time I previously mentioned an IDE was with regard to RemObjects and Embarcadero offering cross-compilation to Android/iOS with their products.
>>>
>>> "There is a case to be made for supporting  Android/iOS cross-compilation. But it doesn't have to come at the expense of Windows 64-bit integration. Not sure they even involve the same skillsets. Embarcadero and Remobjects both now support Android/iOS development from their Windows (and macOS in the case of Remobjects) IDEs."
>>>
>>> That was to highlight that those two compiler companies have seen fit to also cross-compile to mobile - they saw an importance to mobile development. It wasn't about what IDEs are best for mobile or even what IDEs are being used for mobile.
>>
>> If you look back to the first mention of IDES, it was your statement, "Good luck selling game developers on using D to develop for Android, when you can't supply those same game developers a top-notch development environment for the premier platform for performance critical games - Windows 64-bit."
>>
>> That at least implies that they're using the same IDE to target both mobile and PC gaming, which is what I was disputing.  If you agree that they use completely different toolchains, then it is irrelevant whether D supports Windows-focused IDEs, as it doesn't affect mobile-focused devs.
>
> My statements quoted didn't mention IDEs and they didn't imply IDEs. What was implied was the initial line in the first post "* better dll support for Windows". My assumption is that game developers (or just developers) work on multiple OSes. If you want them to use a language - like D - they should find it compelling to use on all their platforms.

Your statement was made in direct response to my question, "why spend time getting D great Windows IDE support if you don't think Windows has much of a future?"  I've already said I don't think there's much overlap between mobile and PC games, the markets are fairly disjoint.  The top mobile games are never released for PC and vice versa.  As for dll support, that was not mentioned at all in the OT thread to which you were responding, and you never called it out.

>> I've always thought that flat Metro interface was best suited for mobile displays, the easiest to view, render, and touch.  To some extent, all the other mobile interfaces have copied it, with their move to flat UIs over the years.  However, it obviously takes much more than a nice GUI to do well in mobile.
>
> I don't know what a flat UI is, but every mobile OS I have used - Blackberry 9/10, Nokia Symbian, Nokia Linux, Palm OS, WebOS, Firefox OS, iOS, Android - all have the same essential interface. Icons on a scrolling desktop. Windows 8/10 Mobile, with the resizable live tiles is the only one that does the interface differently, and in my opinion, does it the best.

Yes, icons on a background- not sure how you call it a desktop anymore ;) - are now the default, as opposed to Metro's live tiles.  I agree that Metro is better in that regard, though I never handled a WinPhone for more than a couple minutes, but there were all kinds of other problems with it.  For example, even in my limited use I remember it had animations when you were jumping into apps or other views, presumably because it was so slow that they wanted to stick something moving in there.

And doing one aspect of the UI better is meaningless when you make so many other mistakes, whether supporting multi-core very late or not realizing Continuum is a differentiator and pushing that earlier.

As for flat UIs, you really should be aware of the effect your beloved Metro has had:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_design

>>>>> Why did they fund development of a new iMac Pro which is coming this December as well as the new MacBook Pros that came out this June? That's a contradiction of "milk it like an iPod".
>>>>
>>>> Because their userbase was rebelling?  I take it you're not that familiar with Mac users, but they were genuinely scared that Apple was leaving them behind, since they weren't refreshing Mac and Macbooks much anymore and all Apple's focus is on iOS:
>>>
>>> So, let them rebel. You said that they would like to see it go away, and/or they want to milk it. If you have to spend money on development to keep selling it, then you can't "milk it".
>>
>> You and I and Jobs may've let them rebel, but Apple is a public corporation.  They can't just let easy money go, their shareholders may not like it. Perhaps you're not too familiar with legacy calculations, but they're probably still making good money off Macs, but it just distracts and keeps good Apple devs off the real cash cow, iPhone.  Even if the Mac financials aren't _that_ great anymore, you don't necessarily want to piss off your oldest and most loyal customers, who may stop buying iPhones and iPads too.
>
> It would either be you and Jobs, or just you, letting them rebel. I would keep the line.

That's funny, as I was responding to your statement above, "So, let them rebel." :D

> The large Apple profit comes from offering quality products and then pricing them at the highest gross profit margin in the industry. In order to get people to pay a premium for their products it helps to have a mystique or following, and the macOS line helps to maintain their mystique and it is small potatoes next to their phone business.

I've already said repeatedly that they're not going to drop the Mac line anytime soon, so I don't know why you want to write a paragraph justifying keeping it.  As for mystique, it is laughable that you think this outdated Mac line that practically nobody buys compared to the iPhone provides any. :) More likely, they will keep milking the Mac-buying chumps till they stop, or when they can just tell them to buy an iPhone with a multi-window option instead.

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 07:33:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/1/2017 11:42 AM, Bo wrote:
>> And frankly, Walter or whoever, there needed to have been put a stop to this anti Windows bullshit several days ago. As long as people use this level of disrespect towards community members because they are not using the "right" platform.
>
> Don't worry, Windows remains a high priority platform for D.
>
> In the not-so-long run, all the platforms are dead. Little to none of D will work on any platform prior to 10 years ago or so. D needs to run on the major platforms of today, and that certainly includes Windows.
>
> Nobody is obliged to work on any platform they don't want to work on. And nobody is entitled to berate anyone for working on any platform they want to.

This post contradicts or corrects nothing said in this thread, but simply responds to the crazy, unsupported claims of this guy. I understand that you probably didn't read this OT thread but maybe just saw your name and wanted to reassure this guy, but you should have at least read the responses to him, where I pointed out that it's bonkers to suggest what was written, ie showing that Windows is declining so we should limit our future investment, shows "disrespect" to him or is "anti Windows."