On 2013-12-03 21:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Pull request please. Also does everybody like the graphics at the top of
> http://dconf.org/2014/index.html?

Honestly, no. It's very, yellow. Although I'm no designer so I won't try to create an alternative.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 03/12/13 21:53, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Pull request please.

I've no objection to that, but in this case I think I'd rather donate towards hiring a really good designer to modernize the website UI [*].  If we're not kickstarting the conference this year, how about a donation drive for the website + forums?

[* Secondary worry: if we're going to have a big "Get Started With D!" notice on the front page, all those installers had better be well tested and guaranteed to Just Work.]

[* Tertiary worry: I'm not convinced the website will benefit from one or two of us contributing what we think is a clearer "get started" message.  User testing is really the only way to ensure that people get from the website what we want them to get.]

On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 20:53:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/3/13 7:56 AM, eles wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 15:07:36 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>> On 29/11/13 14:53, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>
>>> The obvious solution to this is that the homepage should have a Big
>>> Friendly Button shouting "Get started with D!" that should take you to
>>> a page which auto-detects your system and makes available an
>>> appropriate installer.
>>
>> At least let it be a *proeminent* link towards the "Downloads & Tools"
>> page, which is so quietly hidden in the left menu.
>
> Pull request please. Also does everybody like the graphics at the top of http://dconf.org/2014/index.html?
>
> Andrei

The yellow doesn't "stand" well on the dark gray background. It causes the eyes to focus and defocus. Plain white or a very light yellow would be better.

Good idea to have a curvy font based on the letter "D". Only the "4" in 2014 seems to be a bit of an outlier, maybe it would help to give it some curves at the top (and on the left). It kind of breaks the overall curvy feeling.

Maybe move the logo+text a bit more to the right and give the text a bit more padding-left to give it more room to "breathe". The content could do with a bit more line spacing in the bullet-point section.

If I have time and there is demand I could attempt a design template for 2015. At the moment I'm too busy to come up with anything for 2014.

On Monday, 2 December 2013 at 21:33:19 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday, 30 November 2013 at 21:19:15 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
>> On Friday, 29 November 2013 at 16:15:10 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>> I agree that D, too, can be a bit confusing. I sometimes have problems with AA declarations.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> string[string][string] hm; // What am I?
>
>     string[string][string] hm;
>
> The result is a string, obtained through associative array with key string, obtained through associative array with key string which is located at hm.
>
>> How about something *ridiculous* in right-to-left reading:
>>
>> rofl *[string][]*bool;
>
>     bool*[][string]* rofl;
>
> The result is bool, through a pointer, stored in an array, obtained through associative array with key of string, stored in array, and all pointeded to from a location rofl.

For the record, this is the idea behind the Go's declaration syntax:

http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax

I liked their idea about declaring left-to-right, but using right-to-left (that is the distinction between type syntax and expression syntax). Shame that they didn't make the right choice for the pointer syntax.

On Sunday, 1 December 2013 at 06:43:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 11/30/2013 1:19 PM, Chris Cain wrote:
>> C, however, is a horrific mess.
>
> The trick to reading C declarations is the form matches exactly how it is used in an expression. For example, a function

They acknowledge that here:

http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax

but they give a nice convoluted counter-example; read this:

int (*(*fp)(int (*)(int, int), int))(int, int)

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 at 10:33:02 UTC, eles wrote:
> http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax
>
> but they give a nice convoluted counter-example; read this:
>
> int (*(*fp)(int (*)(int, int), int))(int, int)

Yep. Spiral reading on this:

fp is a pointer to a function taking in ( a pointer to a function taking in an int and another int returning an int ) and an int returning a pointer to a function taking in an int and an int returning an int.

Although it's an artificially really complex example, it's ridiculous you have to read it in a spiral to understand it.

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 at 11:12:00 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 at 10:33:02 UTC, eles wrote:
>> http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax
>>
>> but they give a nice convoluted counter-example; read this:
>>
>> int (*(*fp)(int (*)(int, int), int))(int, int)
>
> Yep. Spiral reading on this:
>
> fp is a pointer to a function taking in ( a pointer to a function taking in an int and another int returning an int ) and an int returning a pointer to a function taking in an int and an int returning an int.
>
> Although it's an artificially really complex example, it's ridiculous you have to read it in a spiral to understand it.

C's

int numbers[];

is really awkward. But I think that D's

int[] numbers;

is just as clear as Go's right-to-left declaration. I think the problem is not really the reading _direction_ but the reading _logic_ that makes clear what belongs to what. int[] is an array of integers, just as []int is an array of integers. It's clear because it's glued to the type and not to the variable name.

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 at 11:23:35 UTC, Chris wrote:
> C's
>
> int numbers[];
>
> is really awkward. But I think that D's
>
> int[] numbers;
>
> is just as clear as Go's right-to-left declaration. I think the problem is not really the reading _direction_ but the reading _logic_ that makes clear what belongs to what. int[] is an array of integers, just as []int is an array of integers. It's clear because it's glued to the type and not to the variable name.

Yeah. D's is mostly fine on this. I wouldn't at all recommend a change on this (even for D3). I'm just bringing up the point that it's more natural to read "the other way around". And that C's reading is terrible in this regard. I've never had an issue with understanding D's reading (but, that said, C's reading hasn't confused me after I learned the spiral rule, it's just annoyed me).

On 2013-12-04 03:19:45 +0000, Daniel Murphy said:

> "Shammah Chancellor" <anonymous@coward.com> wrote in message news:l7lrsm$2s0c$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 2013-12-03 03:33:32 +0000, Daniel Murphy said:
>> 
>>> "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.208.1386005781.3242.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>>> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 05:34:12PM +0100, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 2 December 2013 at 16:19:11 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>>>> +1. Can we have multiple alias this? Pretty please? :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> It think it is all about "pretty pulls please" ;)
>>>> 
>>>> I know, I know... I just need to find the time to sit down and dig into
>>>> the dmd code. Unfortunately, unlike Phobos where the code is easy to
>>>> understand (thanks to being written in D), the dmd code is harder. Well,
>>>> that, and I just haven't had the time to look over it more carefully.
>>>> 
>>>> OTOH, there's also the temptation to wait until we've bootstrapped dmd
>>>> into D, so that I can work with D source code instead of C++. :)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The D version is automatically generated from the C++ version, so time spent learning the C++ code would not be wasted.
>> 
>> Please tell me more.   Is this actually happening?  Where's it at?
>> 
> 
> Yeah.  See:
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/khkst4$13ad$1@digitalmars.com
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/jqvduhyvfufpzovpyqbj@forum.dlang.org
> 
> Patches against dmd: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1980
> Converter tool: https://github.com/yebblies/magicport2
> Pull requests marked DDMD: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pulls/yebblies


This is AWESOME!!!!   Keep up the good work.  Can't wait to see how the DMD frontend performs in D.

With the version, is there any chance of LLVM being the default backend -- or is Walter opposed to that?

-Shammah

On 12/4/2013 2:33 AM, eles wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 December 2013 at 06:43:13 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 11/30/2013 1:19 PM, Chris Cain wrote:
>>> C, however, is a horrific mess.
>>
>> The trick to reading C declarations is the form matches exactly how it is used
>> in an expression. For example, a function
>
> They acknowledge that here:
>
> http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax
>
> but they give a nice convoluted counter-example; read this:
>
> int (*(*fp)(int (*)(int, int), int))(int, int)

It's not a counterexample. It's still the same as how you'd use it in an expression.