TDPL, currently counting 398 pages including a small index, has entered editorial review this morning. The book draft includes everything except the threading chapter. I've marked the personal record of writing one chapter in one night :o).

Andrei

On 16/12/09 19:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> TDPL, currently counting 398 pages including a small index, has entered
> editorial review this morning. The book draft includes everything except
> the threading chapter. I've marked the personal record of writing one
> chapter in one night :o).
>
> Andrei

Congratulations! I can't wait to receive my copy in a few months time :)

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> TDPL, currently counting 398 pages including a small index, has entered editorial review this morning. The book draft includes everything except the threading chapter. I've marked the personal record of writing one chapter in one night :o).

Congratulations.  I must profess that over the last couple of months I've been feeling a big uptick of enthusiasm about D2.  It is really quit an amazing language and with library and tool support should be able to deliver what C, C++, Java, C# (and lately Go) have not.

I did go through a period of skepticism about D leadership when I realized that D2 was not really backwards compatible with D1 and had trouble understanding why llvm hasn't played a bigger role in the long term planning of the project.  I have since come around to the point of view that my fears were mostly misplaced...D2 is something quite special and I think ultimately will take hold.

Ok, enough gushing :-).

merlin

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:55:12 -0500, merlin wrote:

> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> TDPL, currently counting 398 pages including a small index, has entered editorial review this morning. The book draft includes everything except the threading chapter. I've marked the personal record of writing one chapter in one night :o).
> 
> Congratulations.  I must profess that over the last couple of months I've been feeling a big uptick of enthusiasm about D2.  It is really quit an amazing language and with library and tool support should be able to deliver what C, C++, Java, C# (and lately Go) have not.
> 
> I did go through a period of skepticism about D leadership when I realized that D2 was not really backwards compatible with D1 and had trouble understanding why llvm hasn't played a bigger role in the long term planning of the project.  I have since come around to the point of view that my fears were mostly misplaced...D2 is something quite special and I think ultimately will take hold.

Just like D1 solved the problem of metaprogramming, D2 will solve many, if not most, multi-core threading problems with the immutable and thread local data types.

retard wrote:
> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:55:12 -0500, merlin wrote:
> 
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> TDPL, currently counting 398 pages including a small index, has entered
>>> editorial review this morning. The book draft includes everything
>>> except the threading chapter. I've marked the personal record of
>>> writing one chapter in one night :o).
>> Congratulations.  I must profess that over the last couple of months
>> I've been feeling a big uptick of enthusiasm about D2.  It is really
>> quit an amazing language and with library and tool support should be
>> able to deliver what C, C++, Java, C# (and lately Go) have not.
>>
>> I did go through a period of skepticism about D leadership when I
>> realized that D2 was not really backwards compatible with D1 and had
>> trouble understanding why llvm hasn't played a bigger role in the long
>> term planning of the project.  I have since come around to the point of
>> view that my fears were mostly misplaced...D2 is something quite special
>> and I think ultimately will take hold.
> 
> Just like D1 solved the problem of metaprogramming, D2 will solve many, if not most, multi-core threading problems with the immutable and thread local data types.

Keeping my fingers crossed regarding that one :o).

Thank you for your vote of confidence, it is indeed quite a turnaround from people's (and, in fact, some of my) feelings of a few months ago. We've experienced a long, unprecedented, and completely serendipitous windfall of productivity since around the time Don joined the compiler work. I guess there is a correlation there :o). It's just been one lucky strike after another.

But let's not forget we have concurrency ahead of us. I encourage you all to chime in with your thoughts and ideas regarding all aspects of concurrency. The recent multicore performance bug is a great starting point. If you try e.g. shared and it's broken, let us know. If you try it and it works, push it til it breaks. If you have ideas on how to make semantic checking better, pipe up.


Andrei

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> But let's not forget we have concurrency ahead of us. I encourage you all to chime in with your thoughts and ideas regarding all aspects of concurrency. The recent multicore performance bug is a great starting point. If you try e.g. shared and it's broken, let us know. If you try it and it works, push it til it breaks. If you have ideas on how to make semantic checking better, pipe up.

There's a guy on the NG who posts once in a while how broken shared is and how he has to use __gshared instead. His threads are being pretty much ignored.

And now?

> 
> Andrei

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org)'s article
> But let's not forget we have concurrency ahead of us. I encourage you
> all to chime in with your thoughts and ideas regarding all aspects of
> concurrency. The recent multicore performance bug is a great starting
> point. If you try e.g. shared and it's broken, let us know. If you try
> it and it works, push it til it breaks. If you have ideas on how to make
> semantic checking better, pipe up.
> Andrei

I think for this to happen, there needs to be a tutorial somewhere explaining what shared is supposed to do (there were so many ideas thrown around that I don't remember them all and don't know which ones got adopted), and how much of it is already implemented.

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> 
> But let's not forget we have concurrency ahead of us. I encourage you all to chime in with your thoughts and ideas regarding all aspects of concurrency. The recent multicore performance bug is a great starting point. If you try e.g. shared and it's broken, let us know. If you try it and it works, push it til it breaks. If you have ideas on how to make semantic checking better, pipe up.

I posted several shared issues to the NG a few days ago and got no replies. Most of it was about poor error messages (both misleading text and missing file/line numbers). I should do proper bugzilla entries but haven't tinkered with D much since. As always, this post comes from my phone instead of a proper computer, or else I'd provide a link or do the bugzilla entries while I'm thinking of it.

IIRC, the most troublesome error happened when I created "shared this(){...}" constructor and no information on where it caused errors.

> 
> Andrei

Jason House wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> 
>> But let's not forget we have concurrency ahead of us. I encourage you all to chime in with your thoughts and ideas regarding all aspects of concurrency. The recent multicore performance bug is a great starting point. If you try e.g. shared and it's broken, let us know. If you try it and it works, push it til it breaks. If you have ideas on how to make semantic checking better, pipe up.
> 
> I posted several shared issues to the NG a few days ago and got no replies. Most of it was about poor error messages (both misleading text and missing file/line numbers). I should do proper bugzilla entries but haven't tinkered with D much since. As always, this post comes from my phone instead of a proper computer, or else I'd provide a link or do the bugzilla entries while I'm thinking of it.
> 
> IIRC, the most troublesome error happened when I created "shared this(){...}" constructor and no information on where it caused errors. 

Thanks, Jason. I did see those messages but I didn't want to dilute focus back when you posted them.

If you could put together bugzilla entries as you try things, that would be great. The shared constructor I'll experiment with first.


Andrei

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:13:36 +0100, grauzone wrote:

> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> But let's not forget we have concurrency ahead of us. I encourage you all to chime in with your thoughts and ideas regarding all aspects of concurrency. The recent multicore performance bug is a great starting point. If you try e.g. shared and it's broken, let us know. If you try it and it works, push it til it breaks. If you have ideas on how to make semantic checking better, pipe up.
> 
> There's a guy on the NG who posts once in a while how broken shared is and how he has to use __gshared instead. His threads are being pretty much ignored.
> 
> And now?
> 
> 
>> Andrei

I'm certainly in that category. I will be trying (soon) to put a post together that sets out my issues with 'shared'.