On Sunday, 25 November 2018 at 13:04:41 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> On 26/11/2018 1:58 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Guess why - and this speaks volumes - Johnathan M. Davis couldn't be bothered to put dxml through a review process? Johnathan told us that he wasn't "too enthusiastic" about it. Why wasn't the new std.xml ever reviewed + accepted back in the day?
>
> If you're referring to std.experimental.xml, simple it was horrible code that wasn't complete and I did try to improve upon it. It just wasn't good D code. It wouldn't pass the review even if feature complete.

I don't know if it's the same code that was written for std.xml(2). But why does it take so long to even reject something? Normally you would say "Not good enough" and you'd announce that you need a better module (with specs). Or why not take Jonathan's stuff (which I understand is very good) and integrate it without him having to "push it". Successful companies do that. They take promising stuff, clean it up and improve it. You cannot wait until a volunteer has got it "perfect". It might happen that you have something that's 90% there and then it's just binned / abandoned, because the volunteer didn't put in the last 10% . And then the volunteer is to blame. And maybe the poor volunteer couldn't finish the work, because s/he had to wait for feature X to be implemented.

On 26/11/2018 3:04 AM, Chris wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 November 2018 at 13:04:41 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> On 26/11/2018 1:58 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> Guess why - and this speaks volumes - Johnathan M. Davis couldn't be bothered to put dxml through a review process? Johnathan told us that he wasn't "too enthusiastic" about it. Why wasn't the new std.xml ever reviewed + accepted back in the day?
>>
>> If you're referring to std.experimental.xml, simple it was horrible code that wasn't complete and I did try to improve upon it. It just wasn't good D code. It wouldn't pass the review even if feature complete.
> 
> I don't know if it's the same code that was written for std.xml(2). But why does it take so long to even reject something? Normally you would say "Not good enough" and you'd announce that you need a better module (with specs). Or why not take Jonathan's stuff (which I understand is very good) and integrate it without him having to "push it". Successful companies do that. They take promising stuff, clean it up and improve it. You cannot wait until a volunteer has got it "perfect". It might happen that you have something that's 90% there and then it's just binned / abandoned, because the volunteer didn't put in the last 10% . And then the volunteer is to blame. And maybe the poor volunteer couldn't finish the work, because s/he had to wait for feature X to be implemented.

It doesn't matter who does it. Its still all volunteer work even if there is a bit of compensation to go with it.

Jonathan's xml library is good within its scope. But it definitely isn't xml compliant because its scope says so. There is nothing wrong with this, but there are problems for this to go into Phobos as it is today.

We have been bitten in the past by code who wasn't scoped properly. So it should be a lot harder to have things accepted. Just a shame we don't really have the money to throw at a team to do libraries like this. To give people the options they need to both fit with D and with their external requirements (like specs).

On Saturday, 24 November 2018 at 18:02:59 UTC, welkam wrote:

>
> The real reason he is upset is because reality didnt match with his internal view(expectations). This creates anger, disturbance(dont know better words). Then "left brain" tries to come up with reasons to explain this feeling and thats what you get in his posts. Left brain coming up with reasons.

I don't have a "left brain" - I'm not a mutant. I have one brain (that has two halves). My unreasonable expectations are surprisingly reasonable in other languages / communities.

> People in neuroscience know for some time now that brain comes up with possible sounding explanations that are not the real reasons. Here are example from split brain. Talking about left explaining stuff start at 1:16
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8
> Another example from Sam Harris. 19:55-20:10
> https://youtu.be/gfpq_CIFDjg?t=1195

Possible sounding explanation of unreasonable person:

- bad leadership, chaos, lack of vision / strategy, lack of understanding how business works

Real explanation:

- stupid user who doesn't understand D's philosophy and higher goals.

> If you want these kinds of post to go away start managing expectation (almost impossible) or improve D (the thing you already doing)

Once this kind of posts are gone, it will mean one of two things:

either: 1. D has become a sound and reliable language with a good ecosystem.

or: 2. D has been abandoned by everyone but the zealots.

On Sunday, 25 November 2018 at 14:20:25 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:

> Just a shame we don't really have the money to throw at a team to do libraries like this. To give people the options they need to both fit with D and with their external requirements (like specs).

Thing is, there is already a team of good developers willing to volunteer their time. What would be different, and would cause the work to get done if it were paid out of limited funds, is that there would be a decision made to do X, Y, and Z, and when it was done, it would become part of D. The current system is "go ahead and do something and if we like it we might ask you to make a bunch of changes and in a few years there's a small chance it'll get accepted." Lack of money is not the problem.

On Sunday, 25 November 2018 at 14:26:06 UTC, Chris wrote:
>
> I don't have a "left brain" - I'm not a mutant. I have one brain (that has two halves).

those quotes are there for a reason. Its not to be taken literally. Real explanation would take too much typing. Also did you watch the CCP grey video in my post?

> My unreasonable expectations are surprisingly reasonable in other languages / communities.

You mean languages with smaller scope and bigger resources? Like kotlin or rust? They both have lower scope than D and more resources. The closes to D in terms of scope and resources is nim and its rough on edges too. I would argue even more rough than D. So what D and nim have in common? Lack of resources.

>
> Possible sounding explanation of unreasonable person:
>
> - bad leadership, chaos, lack of vision / strategy, lack of understanding how business works
>
> Real explanation:
>
> - stupid user who doesn't understand D's philosophy and higher goals.

In that post I treated you as human. Human that is just like me and billions of others. When you look at human brain close enough you will find strange thing.



I dont know how you can look at $1605 per month and say "yeah you can hire loads of high skilled developers to do awesome job". (im exaggerating to make a point)

Look at that number as long as you need until you get it. I have 80-90% agreement with what is wrong with D but I dont act like you. That number is a reason.

P.s. If you want people to think of you as reasonable person dont compare non-profit open source project to for profit organization.

On Saturday, 24 November 2018 at 18:00:44 UTC, Grumpy wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 November 2018 at 17:37:36 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

>
> Since the transparency of the leaders and the foundation is very bad, let's look a little bit more about what secret strategy they are concentrating on:
>
> Walter, months to convert the backend from C ++ to D, be careful, in a compiler in which you can not even turn on the GC, what a show, pride for the D programming language! Should we talk about the DIP1000 documentation?
>
> Andrei: https://github.com/andralex
> Need to add more? More than a gatekeeper, this is a solid brick wall.
>
> With these examples, the problem is the lack of contributions?
>
> This is pure collective madness.

I called it an "autocratic chaos". Since my brain (at least the left half) has been analyzed in this thread, let's take this a bit further and talk about psychology. I may well be that Walter and other core devs really feel that they are making great progress when porting DMD to D and stuff like that. Indeed, their own projects might be emotionally rewarding and trigger feelings of euphoria. So the projects they're emotionally involved in are much more important to them than dreadful stuff like fixing `autodecode` - naturally.

This causes a discrepancy between what users see / want / need and what the leadership sees / wants.

If the above is true, it has to be changed. A project like D cannot survive if it's only driven by personal preferences. In my own job I sometimes work on interesting and emotionally rewarding stuff, but I also have to do the head wrecking and boring stuff that may not even be related to writing code - boring but necessary.

It's not just a question of the - by now famous - $1,600 a month. I've seen other open source projects thrive because of a different community culture. "Do what you like or is important to you personally" will only get you so far. If people who are willing to volunteer see why they should spend time doing chore X or Y, they will do it. But if there's no clear vision and it takes ages to get a review / accepted, then why bother?

On 11/24/18 11:23 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> BTW, you can defeat autodecode for your own programs by using the .byChar filter:
> 
> https://dlang.org/phobos/std_utf.html#byChar

No, use byCodeUnit instead. byChar will convert other characters to char (in fact, byChar just returns r.byCodeUnit if it detects it's the same width).

This is if you are expecting to ONLY get around auto-decoding. Of course, if you need conversion to a specific width, byChar or byWchar or byDchar will be useful.

-Steve

On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 10:19:14 UTC, Chris wrote:

> In my own job I sometimes work on interesting and emotionally rewarding stuff, but I also have to do the head wrecking and boring stuff that may not even be related to writing code - boring but necessary.
That is because you are being paid to do so!

On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 14:28:58 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 10:19:14 UTC, Chris wrote:
>
>> In my own job I sometimes work on interesting and emotionally rewarding stuff, but I also have to do the head wrecking and boring stuff that may not even be related to writing code - boring but necessary.

> That is because you are being paid to do so!

Ah, no! Please. It works in other open source projects too. People volunteer to do head-wrecking nitty-gritty stuff, if they have the feeling it's worth it. Isn't LDC an example of just this? You just have to encourage people and give them some sort of reassurance. If, however, the leadership doesn't lead by example and acts more or less in a random manner, what do you expect? Wasn't it Walter himself who once stated that the attitude of the management trickles down? It actually does. There's even a proverb "Like master, like man."

On Monday, 26 November 2018 at 10:19:14 UTC, Chris wrote:
> I may well be that Walter and other core devs really feel that they are making great progress when porting DMD to D and stuff like that.

Actually D had postponed porting from C++ to D for a long time. Other languages like nim and jai from beginning had their implementation done in itself. Secondly translating was done with a tool and my guess didnt took much of work for DMD backend. Well compared to what would it take to make android app development easy. Thirdly compiler being in D means more people from community can participate in compiler development. I started twiddling with compiler because it was mostly in D and would not touched it if it was in C++.

> Indeed, their own projects might be emotionally rewarding and trigger feelings of euphoria.

Its clear you havent read single whitepaper on behavioral psychology or neuroscience.

> A project like D cannot survive if it's only driven by personal preferences.

The good thing is that its not only driven by personal preference. Now we have d foundation and companies who sponsor work on libraries like Symmetry Investments. This trend will only increase but not at the speed you or I want.

> In my own job I sometimes work on interesting and emotionally rewarding stuff, but I also have to do the head wrecking and boring stuff that may not even be related to writing code - boring but necessary.

You compare open source with for profit company again. We all do boring but necessary stuff in paid jobs. Your not exception. What matters here is that you expect other people who worked 8h of boring stuff to go home and work on more boring stuff for free. These kind of people are rare and you are not one of them yourself.

> It's not just a question of the - by now famous - $1,600 a month. I've seen other open source projects thrive because of a different community culture.

Stop being vague and start naming open source projects that are as big scope as D and thrive without corporate sponsorship. We might learn something.

> it takes ages to get a review / accepted, then why bother?

You would be surprised what a little bit of money can change and Nicholas already doing good work
https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/NDUwNTY=


Oh and about fixing autodecode https://youtu.be/Lo6Q2vB9AAg?t=4044