On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:44:00 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:38:02 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> They do of course use golang for their blog and make it available as a download.
>>
>> As they _should_.
>
> google. money. does that rings the bell?

No. The go blog software is very small, <400 lines of code.

If you use vibe.d for development as it has been said then it makes people wonder even more why it isn't deployed.

srsly.

Showcase your own stuff, nobody else are likely to do it.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:49:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:44:00 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:38:02 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> They do of course use golang for their blog and make it available as a download.
>>>
>>> As they _should_.
>>
>> google. money. does that rings the bell?
>
> No. The go blog software is very small, <400 lines of code.

go write it! nope? why do you think that D devs should? they have other work to do, it would be *stupid* to not reuse existing tools.

google. money.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:53:32 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> go write it! nope? why do you think that D devs should? they have other work to do, it would be *stupid* to not reuse existing tools.

If I thought that D was good for the purpose, I would. I have not made such claims. I am pointing out that those who claim that D is suitable for a particular field should be expected to demonstrate it on their own turf.

It _does_ not take a lot of effort, if it is as good as is being claimed.
If it takes a lot of effort, then why should I bother with it?

You need to understand that you are contradicting the claims that are being made about D by not actually being willing to showcase it.

This is very basic marketing 101.

Not expensive.

Belive in something? Showcase it on your own lawn, house, car, website...

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:45:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> What does that have to do with the website? The forum software is written in D and has a reputation for performance. This is simply a matter of it not popping up on anyone's radar and has nothing to do with the GC or performance hits.
>
> Jonathan pointed out that people loose confidence when projects don't use their own tech if they have it. If this was just a single datapoint it would be a non-issue, but when it is a tendency, then it is a marketing issue.
>
>
I was specifically referencing the bit you chopped out in the quote about GC and bad performance. I understood Jonathan's argument just fine (though I disagree with it). I didn't understand yours.

At any rate, we *are* using our own tech in several places. And I think Seb has shown that in practice, it probably isn't that big a deal that the entire website isn't served by a D project.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:58:31 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> This is very basic marketing 101.

engineers doesn't do marketing. engineers solving tasks.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:51:58 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> The forum-index http header report:
>>
>> Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)
>>
>> People check out stuff like that.
>
> Yeah, and that's an industry-standard production deployment.
>
> But perhaps we should just change the server line for the people who do look at it. No need to change the deployment, just the apache/nginx config to spit out something different.

I can picture the article now:

> The D programming language maintains its own web framework called vibe.d, but the official website dlang.org doesn't use it.  Instead they use the Apache framework written in C.  They also decided to modify Apache to make it look like their own vibe.d framework.  Apparently tricking people into thinking they use their own code was easier the actually using it.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:05:42 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> I can picture the article now:

I can't. It is an industry-standard deployment with a commonly used configuration option - people change that all the time. PHP, for example, will modify it to output something like this:

Server: Apache/2.4.6 (Unix) PHP/5.4.20

when you use it - they append their brand to the existing string.


The only articles I have ever seen about this is people saying you should blank it out to make script kiddies have a harder time figuring out just which version you have installed - people SUGGEST that you obscure it!


BTW, when I see a live server running a custom httpd, I tend to have a negative reaction: the sysadmin is lazy and didn't bother with a proper setup. There's a reason ALL the other major languages and frameworks use Apache/nginx/IIS on their websites. It's the recommended way to do it.

There's a difference between an application server and a frontend web server.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 17:05:42 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:51:58 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 15:05:54 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> The forum-index http header report:
>>>
>>> Server:nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)
>>>
>>> People check out stuff like that.
>>
>> Yeah, and that's an industry-standard production deployment.
>>
>> But perhaps we should just change the server line for the people who do look at it. No need to change the deployment, just the apache/nginx config to spit out something different.
>
> I can picture the article now:
>
>> The D programming language maintains its own web framework called vibe.d, but the official website dlang.org doesn't use it.  Instead they use the Apache framework written in C.  They also decided to modify Apache to make it look like their own vibe.d framework.  Apparently tricking people into thinking they use their own code was easier the actually using it.


A lot of languages have a web framework that sits behind a server written in a different language.  .NET powers a ton of sites and applications and usually runs on IIS which is written in C++.  Also if I were to use vibe then I would prolly run it behind a reverse proxy like nginx.  This is actually pretty standard way of deploying apps like say a Django, Flask, etc.... Nothing wrong with that and that by no means makes Python a useless language for the web.  Even Digital Oceans guide for Node and Python apps have you setup nginx as a reverse proxy.  Also Plays uguide shows how to setup nginx as a proxy.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 16:58:42 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> At any rate, we *are* using our own tech in several places. And I think Seb has shown that in practice, it probably isn't that big a deal that the entire website isn't served by a D project.

If you want to convince me, as a backend web developer, that you have something worth looking at you have to showcase the result and also provide the source code for it. Ideally I should be able to download the source from github and get something similar running with little effort. If I have to write lots of code for things that are basic, then it isn't interesting to me.

Same thing for the compiler. I look at it in order to find out how D can be used in a larger project. If I find that you bypass the runtime in order to perform and revert to manual raw-pointer memory management, then it isn't interesting to me.

Same thing with standard library. I look at it to see how real world programming in D (by language experts) turns out.

The only reason I am starting to adopt Go for backend is that they showcase that the things I want to do can done with concise source code. Without such real world showcases I would most likely not even consider it.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 14:41:55 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I like the "are we fast yet" websites that various project put up, displaying improvements over time.

You mean like this? http://digger.k3.1azy.net/trend/