On 5/25/20 6:20 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:31:37PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...]
>> DasBetterC
> [...]
> 
> Everytime I see this, I can't help thinking it's faux-German for "*the*
> better C". :-P

I assumed that was the joke all along!

On 5/24/2020 4:17 AM, Mark wrote:
> Aren't setjmp/longjmp a form of exception handling?

Yes, but you can do it rather simply without adding the machinery of EH.

On 5/23/2020 9:30 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
> It does not compile in C99.
> Old style declarations and implicit int are forbidden in C99.

Ok, I had forgotten that. They still gave people 10 years to upgrade :-)

On 5/25/2020 3:20 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:31:37PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...]
>> DasBetterC
> [...]
> 
> Everytime I see this, I can't help thinking it's faux-German for "*the*
> better C". :-P

It is. It came about because I actually wrote "D as Better C" and did a double take!

On 5/25/2020 5:11 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/25/20 6:20 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:31:37PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> [...]
>>> DasBetterC
>> [...]
>>
>> Everytime I see this, I can't help thinking it's faux-German for "*the*
>> better C". :-P
> 
> I assumed that was the joke all along!

I couldn't have come up with a better pun in 50 years. This one was quite by fortuitous accident.

On Saturday, 23 May 2020 at 02:26:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/22/2020 12:08 AM, Araq wrote:
>> [x] Users had to patch every function in order to get type safety. Check.
>
> They didn't have to change anything. The following code compiles today on gcc:
>
>     foo(i, j) { return i + j; }
>
>
>> [x] Compiler writers had considerable effort in implementing the new standards. Check.
>
> Nope. (Note that I speak from actual experience.) Want something that's hard to implement? See exception handling, which wasn't added.
>
> Ya know, I've actually implemented a K+R compiler, then upgraded it to C89, then C99. You've got a very tough hill to climb trying to tell me what is hard to implement and what isn't.
>

Well your C99 implementation isn't widely used and if you were to do it properly, you would have had to review every line of code in your optimizers to see if they break the new threading model in subtle ways. I guess you didn't do that, so C is still a simple language to implement when you don't try too hard and have few if any users.

>
>> [x] New features like overloading, and type system extension like 'const' or 'restrict' were added. Check.
>
> Overloading was not added. 'const' was added, but could be ignored, and did not result in any significant coding style change. I already discussed 'restrict' which remains unused.
>

Overloading was added, see the _Generic keyword in C11.

>
>> [x] New code doesn't compile with older compilers without jumping through all sort of hoops. Check.
>
> That's true of any new feature, trivial or not.

Exactly, that's the point. C isn't special.

On Monday, 25 May 2020 at 22:20:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:31:37PM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
>> DasBetterC
> [...]
>
> Everytime I see this, I can't help thinking it's faux-German for "*the* better C". :-P
>
>
> T

Yes the very first time I read it, I read it as Das Better C. It should come with a blinkenlights module.

On Monday, 25 May 2020 at 20:53:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/25/2020 1:23 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Secondly, again you do not answer a single question or address any of the issues raised. This pattern stared to emerge around 2017 I think. Instead of addressing issues raised the manner in which they are raised is more important. So an inconvenient comment / question is either labelled as "unprofessional" or "unspecific". In this way you don't need to address the issue. Hm, politicians do that when they have no substantial arguments, engineers shouldn't behave like that. So once again:
>
> You're not getting a response as long as you keep asking questions in a rude manner.

How exactly were the questions asked in a "rude" manner?

Anyway, here they are again:

1. Is there an update of the companies that (still) use D (cf. sociomantic)?
2. Is Facebook still actively developing software in D?
3. Are there plans for a D3 that will contain all / most of the good features and drop the dead weight / errors?
4. Are there annual financial statements of the D Language Foundation that can be accessed by the public/users/community?

On Monday, 25 May 2020 at 20:57:47 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/23/2020 8:18 AM, Tony wrote:
>> seem to visit the forum to solely to get perverse pleasure from degrading the language and those who work on it.
>
> We expect professional decorum at all times toward all forum members.

Then please delete his post [1] just as you deleted others that you deemed "unprofessional", for consistency's and credibility's sake. Else it looks like two standards are being applied, one to critics of D (deletion), others to its proponents/defenders (slap on the wrist).

[1] https://forum.dlang.org/post/dnvcsbzrzeboxucmejdm@forum.dlang.org

On Monday, 25 May 2020 at 20:47:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/25/2020 1:28 AM, Chris wrote:
>> On Sunday, 24 May 2020 at 04:25:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> Joakim is welcome to return anytime he wants, and we've told him that.
>> 
>> So you forgive him? Great!
>
> We didn't ask him to leave. We only required that he conform to the forum rules. Anyone is welcome here if they comport themselves in a professional manner.

That's not the point. The point was that you treated him in a way that made him lose faith in D and its leadership. There was stonewalling and censorship which sounds familiar to me. My point was that by treating him in this way, you lost a contributor to and a proponent of D. Was it really worth it? I get the impression that you don't really regret it, so somehow you must think it was worth it, for what reason, I don't know.