January 09, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonathan M Davis | On 1/9/2012 11:45 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Please fix the wikipedia entry!
>
> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?
Yes, but 2001 for D1.
|
January 09, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Manfred Nowak | On Monday, January 09, 2012 21:29:01 Manfred Nowak wrote: > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > easily gives the mistaken impression that we're doing a bad job > > ... but only for easy people. > > In addition: > > a:without indication of paid time there isn't a "job"; > b:without specifying the number of full-time service providers, there > isn't a "we" Really? None of Merriam Webster's definitions for job involve being paid (though obviously, you _can_ be paid to do a job - it just isn't required for it to be a job): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/job And since there is a group of us working on D, there is most definitely a we. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here though. - Jonathan M Davis |
January 09, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On 9 January 2012 21:29, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote: > On 1/9/2012 11:45 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >>> >>> Please fix the wikipedia entry! >> >> >> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2? > > > Yes, but 2001 for D1. [citation needed] -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0'; |
January 10, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 9 January 2012 21:29, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2012 11:45 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please fix the wikipedia entry!
>>>
>>>
>>> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?
>>
>>
>> Yes, but 2001 for D1.
>
> [citation needed]
How about the changelog? Or does it have to be an actual article. Maybe Walter's written something at DDJ?
|
January 10, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37:50 Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 1/9/2012 10:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > I suspect that part of the problem is that Wikipedia lists D as appearing in 1999. And, of course, since D2 didn't start until 2007, saying that D has been around since 1999 easily gives the mistaken impression that we're doing a bad job, since D _still_ isn't complete and fully stable.
> >
> > Please fix the wikipedia entry!
>
> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
All of the above. More information there is better than trying to pick a tiny part of it.
|
January 10, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonathan M Davis | Jonathan M Davis wrote: > Really? "A job is a regular activity performed in exchange for payment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job, cited 01/10/2012 Your citation defines the religious figure. > And since there is a group of us working on D, there is most definitely a we. What is a "group", what is "working" and if there is a "we", who belongs to the "others"? > I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here though. Limit yourself only by scales, which you yourself have chosen. -manfred |
January 10, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Manfred Nowak | On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 01:55:23 Manfred Nowak wrote: > Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > Really? > > "A job is a regular activity performed in exchange for payment." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job, cited 01/10/2012 > Your citation defines the religious figure. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/job[1] For some reason, my browser didn't update the URL when clicking on the noun non-pronoun version of the word. There is _zero_ mention of compensation in the dictionary definition. Yes, one's employment is typically referred to as one's job (which is likely why Wikipedia says what it does), but it doesn't _have_ to refer to one's employment. Wikipedia is giving an overly narrow definition. > > And since there is a group of us working on D, there is most definitely a we. > > What is a "group", what is "working" and if there is a "we", who belongs to the "others"? > > > I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here though. > > Limit yourself only by scales, which you yourself have chosen. I still don't see why any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand. We're talking about the state of D and how it's perceived by those outside of the D community. It looks to me like you're just trying to be a troll. - Jonathan M Davis |
January 10, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonathan M Davis | Jonathan M Davis wrote: > It looks to me like you're just trying to be a troll. Nice. > how it's perceived by those outside of the D community. It looks to me like they are all trolls. -manfred |
January 10, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Sean Kelly | On Tuesday, 10 January 2012 at 00:04:31 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> On 9 January 2012 21:29, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2012 11:45 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please fix the wikipedia entry!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but 2001 for D1.
>>
>> [citation needed]
>
> How about the changelog? Or does it have to be an actual article. Maybe Walter's written something at DDJ?
D1 changelog starts with 1.001, 2007-01-23
|
January 10, 2012 Re: Discussion about D at a C++ forum | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonathan M Davis | On Monday, 9 January 2012 at 19:46:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Monday, January 09, 2012 11:37:50 Walter Bright wrote: >> On 1/9/2012 10:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> > I suspect that part of the problem is that Wikipedia lists D as >> > appearing in 1999. And, of course, since D2 didn't start until 2007, >> > saying that D has been around since 1999 easily gives the mistaken >> > impression that we're doing a bad job, since D _still_ isn't complete >> > and fully stable. >> >> Please fix the wikipedia entry! > > With what? Make it say 2003 for D1 and 2007 for D2? > > - Jonathan M Davis Other languages have just 1 date. I think wikipedia's editors would resist if D will be different. If we want to do so, there should be convincing rationale in entry source. Like comment for file extensions (see "file_ext" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D_(programming_language)&action=edit ) |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation