On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 00:24:12 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:

> On 3/28/2015 11:03 AM, ketmar wrote:
>> sure. main D developers shown that they have no respect for other's
>> work (see Andrei calling H.S.Teoh's work of splitting std.algorithm
>> "useless",
>> or Walter blaming me that "the project is badly designed" when it
>> wasn't even my project and i didn't wrote a single line there, and have
>> no understanding of codebase at all), so why should i think that my
>> time is less valuable than theirs?
> 
> 
> You may interpret what others say as you see fit, but when using "" or
> >, please ensure that the quote is accurately verbatim.

ok. "isn't well modularized and encapsulated". that surely means "badly designed" for me.

On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 at 22:50:29 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 24.03.2015 um 23:14 schrieb John Colvin:
>> On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 at 21:31:42 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>> On 03/24/2015 10:11 PM, John Colvin wrote:
>>>> This cannot be added to homebrew until there is a new stable release of
>>>> dub.
>>>
>>> Why is that?
>>> Anyhow dub is in beta and ready soon.
>>
>> Current stable dub fails to build with 2.067.0, so it would break the
>> homebrew dub package.
>
> You mean 2.067.0 fails to build DUB, right? I just had a hard time remembering anything that DUB would have to do differently when building something with 2.067.0 ;)
>
> I think we can tag an RC in the current state, all important fixes are done, AFAIK.

How's the RC going?

Am 04.04.2015 um 18:43 schrieb John Colvin:
> On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 at 22:50:29 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> Am 24.03.2015 um 23:14 schrieb John Colvin:
>>> On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 at 21:31:42 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>>> On 03/24/2015 10:11 PM, John Colvin wrote:
>>>>> This cannot be added to homebrew until there is a new stable
>>>>> release of
>>>>> dub.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>> Anyhow dub is in beta and ready soon.
>>>
>>> Current stable dub fails to build with 2.067.0, so it would break the
>>> homebrew dub package.
>>
>> You mean 2.067.0 fails to build DUB, right? I just had a hard time
>> remembering anything that DUB would have to do differently when
>> building something with 2.067.0 ;)
>>
>> I think we can tag an RC in the current state, all important fixes are
>> done, AFAIK.
>
> How's the RC going?

Going well so far, there are some additional fixes in the current RC2. I'll tag the final release tomorrow or on Monday.

On 03/25/2015 10:38 PM, weaselcat wrote:
>> Anyone know if there's been any comparisons of different
>> heapSizeFactor values? Primarly, compared to the default 2, 1.5 or 1.618.
> 
> has anyone working on the GC actually done any comparisons of the new options?

Yes, we compared different values and 2 was a good compromise. Higher values will result in less collections but use more memory, which lower values will trigger more collections (slowing down your program) while requiring less memory.

On Saturday, 28 March 2015 at 04:36:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/26/2015 3:53 PM, ketmar wrote:
>> filling bugs like "this huge project not compiling!" is not working, as
>> nobody wants to run dustmite on such projects, people just waiting for
>> issue author to provide more information.
>
> Realistically, people who want to work on bug fixing are going to work on ones that have already been isolated and filed.
>
> If you've got a "huge project that's not compiling" and don't know where to start, that implies it isn't well modularized and encapsulated.

Can anyone provide good rules of thumb for this in D (ie how big is too big etc) ?