That's it.  We need a drinking game.

Take a shot of your alcoholic (or if you don't drink alcohol, carbonated) beverage of choice each time someone:

1. suggests D could really do with stable and unstable branches...
2. ...and carefully explains how they work as if Walter has been living
under a rock the past decade.
3. emphatically states that D will get nowhere unless it can link to C++
code...
4. ...or Java code...
5. ...or .NET code.
6. insists that there's only room in this town for one of Phobos and
Tango, demanding pistols at noon.
7. says "dynamicism". ;)

And one every time:

8. Walter surprises us with a new release with a bunch of cool features
no one remembers thinking of, or didn't really think would get
implemented...
9. ...and you're surprised at this.
10. A thread on the NG gets off topic...
11. ...or gets so deeply nested no one knows what the subject line is
anymore.

Any more to add?

-- 
int getRandomNumber()
{
    return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.
              // guaranteed to be random.
}

http://xkcd.com/

v2sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFPma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D i28a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP  http://hackerkey.com/

Daniel Keep Wrote:
> 
> That's it.  We need a drinking game.
> 
> Take a shot of your alcoholic (or if you don't drink alcohol, carbonated) beverage of choice each time someone:
> 
> 1. suggests D could really do with stable and unstable branches...
> 2. ...and carefully explains how they work as if Walter has been living
> under a rock the past decade.

I have a couple of friends who regularly tell young people that they learn more by listening than writing, Guess I should take that advice too. Sorry about that. :-(

My impression was that the discussion about branches were talking about a bigger divide between what was considered stable and unstable, basically that no new features at all would be get into stable until a major new release. Walter seemed to think this would increase the work load and wouldn't be worth it. My point was just that it may not be so painful if the differences between the branches are smaller, and shorter.

My apologies to Walter if he was insulted by this simplistic statement, or if it was just stating the obvious.

Martin Persenius wrote:
> Daniel Keep Wrote:
>> That's it.  We need a drinking game.
>>
>> Take a shot of your alcoholic (or if you don't drink alcohol, carbonated) beverage of choice each time someone:
>>
>> 1. suggests D could really do with stable and unstable branches...
>> 2. ...and carefully explains how they work as if Walter has been living
>> under a rock the past decade.
> 
> I have a couple of friends who regularly tell young people that they learn more by listening than writing, Guess I should take that advice too. Sorry about that. :-(
> 
> My impression was that the discussion about branches were talking about a bigger divide between what was considered stable and unstable, basically that no new features at all would be get into stable until a major new release. Walter seemed to think this would increase the work load and wouldn't be worth it. My point was just that it may not be so painful if the differences between the branches are smaller, and shorter.
> 
> My apologies to Walter if he was insulted by this simplistic statement, or if it was just stating the obvious.

No, no; that's not why I wrote that!

It just seemed to me that there are some issues that just keep coming up over and over, and the stable/unstable branch thing is one of them; we may as well turn them into an excuse to keep a bottle of Coke lying around (I'm one of those strange people who doesn't drink alcohol.)

I didn't directly reply to your post since I didn't really have anything constructive to say, and didn't want you to think I was having a go at you.  Also, being on dialup, watching the video isn't really an option, so I can't comment on that either.

Maybe I should add another rule to the drinking game: take a shot every time I write something *I* think is funny, but which gets misinterpreted because you can't see my silly grin.  I cancel about 90% of my posts because I worry that it's not really adding anything to the discussion, or I might be wrong, etc.

My apologies if I've let one slip though that shouldn't have.

	-- Daniel

P.S. To be honest, I think branches would be a nice thing to have. Usually I give new releases some time to "settle" so that I know about any obvious problems with them before I download and install them :)

All I know for sure is that since Walter is working on DMD by himself, I'm happy for him to stick to whatever is easiest for him.

-- 
int getRandomNumber()
{
    return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.
              // guaranteed to be random.
}

http://xkcd.com/

v2sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFPma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D i28a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP  http://hackerkey.com/

Nevermind that then, glad to hear your response. I could be less sensitive.

> >> That's it.  We need a drinking game.

Whiskey is in supply here!

D (and DMD) desperately needs to have stable and unstable branches. The newest releases are always unstable.

Basically, the idea behind branches is:
 * You can keep "new" code separate from tried-and-true code until it's ready.
 * Nobody will start writing all their library code against the unstable branch until it's made stable.
 * Ahura Mazda only listens to prayers of those who have stable and unstable branches.

Since it would have branches, the unstable branch could add as many features as it wants, but the most important ones are:
 * LINKING AGAINST C++, JAVA AND .NET CODE. I cannot stress enough that D will get nowhere unless it can link against all three.
 * The unstable branch should use Tango. Phobos will be considered the obsolete predecessor to Phobos only.
 * The unstable branch can work on more general concepts, such as increasing the dynamicism of D. I'd like to see prototype-based objects or (optional) dynamic typing.

 - Gregor Richards

Gregor Richards wrote:
> D (and DMD) desperately needs to have stable and unstable branches. The newest releases are always unstable.
> 

[DRINK!]

--bb

<drunk>charlie</drunk>



Gregor Richards wrote:
> D (and DMD) desperately needs to have stable and unstable branches. The newest releases are always unstable.
> 
> Basically, the idea behind branches is:
>  * You can keep "new" code separate from tried-and-true code until it's ready.
>  * Nobody will start writing all their library code against the unstable branch until it's made stable.
>  * Ahura Mazda only listens to prayers of those who have stable and unstable branches.
> 
> Since it would have branches, the unstable branch could add as many features as it wants, but the most important ones are:
>  * LINKING AGAINST C++, JAVA AND .NET CODE. I cannot stress enough that D will get nowhere unless it can link against all three.
>  * The unstable branch should use Tango. Phobos will be considered the obsolete predecessor to Phobos only.
>  * The unstable branch can work on more general concepts, such as increasing the dynamicism of D. I'd like to see prototype-based objects or (optional) dynamic typing.
> 
>  - Gregor Richards

Gregor Richards wrote:
> D (and DMD) desperately needs to have stable and unstable branches. The newest releases are always unstable.
> 
> Basically, the idea behind branches is:
>  * You can keep "new" code separate from tried-and-true code until it's ready.
>  * Nobody will start writing all their library code against the unstable branch until it's made stable.
>  * Ahura Mazda only listens to prayers of those who have stable and unstable branches.
> 
> Since it would have branches, the unstable branch could add as many features as it wants, but the most important ones are:
>  * LINKING AGAINST C++, JAVA AND .NET CODE. I cannot stress enough that D will get nowhere unless it can link against all three.
>  * The unstable branch should use Tango. Phobos will be considered the obsolete predecessor to Phobos only.
>  * The unstable branch can work on more general concepts, such as increasing the dynamicism of D. I'd like to see prototype-based objects or (optional) dynamic typing.
> 
>  - Gregor Richards

OT:

What's your favorite drink?

;)

Clay Smith wrote:
> Gregor Richards wrote:
>> D (and DMD) desperately needs to have stable and unstable branches. The newest releases are always unstable.
>>
>> Basically, the idea behind branches is:
>>  * You can keep "new" code separate from tried-and-true code until it's ready.
>>  * Nobody will start writing all their library code against the unstable branch until it's made stable.
>>  * Ahura Mazda only listens to prayers of those who have stable and unstable branches.
>>
>> Since it would have branches, the unstable branch could add as many features as it wants, but the most important ones are:
>>  * LINKING AGAINST C++, JAVA AND .NET CODE. I cannot stress enough that D will get nowhere unless it can link against all three.
>>  * The unstable branch should use Tango. Phobos will be considered the obsolete predecessor to Phobos only.
>>  * The unstable branch can work on more general concepts, such as increasing the dynamicism of D. I'd like to see prototype-based objects or (optional) dynamic typing.
>>
>>  - Gregor Richards
> 
> OT:
> 
> What's your favorite drink?
> 
> ;)


Tripel -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripel .  Belgian beer is hands down the best beer :).  I recently started 'homebrewing' and found it allot harder than I imagined.  The mechanics aren't that hard, but getting it to taste good is tricky.

Charlie

Daniel Keep wrote:

> It just seemed to me that there are some issues that just keep coming up over and over, and the stable/unstable branch thing is one of them; we may as well turn them into an excuse to keep a bottle of Coke lying around (I'm one of those strange people who doesn't drink alcohol.)

If these things (stable/unstable branches) keep coming up in discussions, it may well be that a lot of people are concerned about them. Maybe, one should take issues like that more seriously after they appeared, say, more than 10 times...

Falk