On Saturday, 26 October 2013 at 22:35:14 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 October 2013 at 21:11:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 10/26/2013 2:02 AM, eles wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 26 October 2013 at 08:36:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 10/26/2013 12:42 AM, eles wrote:
>>>>
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11365
>
> Thank you for considering it.

I am amazed how such a simple issue is provoking unbelievable philosophic discussion attempting to find the best way to bite your own tail while running circles around a tree.

eles:

> Speaking about that, why DMD's source files are written in C++ but bear extension .c?
>
> You seem to appreciate for yourselves a freedom that he denies to others.

Thank you for bringing that good example. Forbidding arbitrary extensions for D code, and enforcing a common standard name helps avoid mistakes like those ".c" extensions in the C++ sources, that numerous persons keep criticizing. The advantages of a standard suffix for D code are way larger than the disadvantages.

Bye,
bearophile

On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:16:22 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 October 2013 at 22:35:14 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Saturday, 26 October 2013 at 21:11:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2013 2:02 AM, eles wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 26 October 2013 at 08:36:53 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>> On 10/26/2013 12:42 AM, eles wrote:
>> Thank you for considering it.
>
> I cannot comment on the bugzilla, but frankly I do not like those comments at all.
>
> Why cannot I name my scripts like:
>
> script.no1
> script.no2
> script.no3
>
> ?
>
> Must always use script_no1 or script_no1.d?

And maybe one day I have a lot of .py files that I intend to replace with D scripts TRANSPARENTLY for their user.

Will D bow at me why I use the .py extension?

Is D trying to shoot his own foot? It really seems to succeed quite well.

My boss is right: is just a toy pretending to be serious.

I am bitter about this.

On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:20:54 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> eles:
>
> Thank you for bringing that good example. Forbidding arbitrary extensions for D code, and enforcing a common standard name helps avoid mistakes like those ".c" extensions in the C++ sources, that numerous persons keep criticizing. The advantages of a standard suffix for D code are way larger than the disadvantages.

In projects, not in scripts. C/C++ not used for scripts.

On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:20:54 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> eles:
> Bye,
> bearophile

Well, then allow just extension .d or NO EXTENSION, but consider files named like:

script.no1
script.julia
script.no5

just as being standard names without any extension (you may see for yourself that there is no extension since they lack the final .d).

D is a wonderful language for which creators try hard to make the worst of tools.

>> Must always use script_no1 or script_no1.d?
>
> And maybe one day I have a lot of .py files that I intend to
> replace with D scripts TRANSPARENTLY for their user.
>
> Will D bow at me why I use the .py extension?
>
> Is D trying to shoot his own foot? It really seems to succeed
> quite well.
>
> My boss is right: is just a toy pretending to be serious.

sorry, but this is a very stupid comment:

1. never ever was a language successful(or not) because
of its file-extension behavior - maybe in your world

2. i hope there is no other tool around try to find/analyse/whatever real Python programs by using the extension - else you need to change that anyway

3. "My boss is right: is just a toy pretending to be serious" - maybe, maybe not - but not because of your stupid file extension comments

thx

On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:28:05 UTC, dennis luehring wrote:
> 3. "My boss is right: is just a toy pretending to be serious" - maybe, maybe not - but not because of your stupid file extension comments

It adds. Tell to my boss about that extensions and he will be grateful for you providing him ONE MORE REASON to laugh. At me.

Am 31.10.2013 15:29, schrieb eles:
> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:28:05 UTC, dennis luehring
> wrote:
>> 3. "My boss is right: is just a toy pretending to be serious" -
>> maybe, maybe not - but not because of your stupid file
>> extension comments
>
> It adds. Tell to my boss about that extensions and he will be
> grateful for you providing him ONE MORE REASON to laugh. At me.

question: why are you using D if

1. Python works for you
2. Python doesnt suffer from the BIG-BIG file-extension problem
3. your laughing Boss tells you D is a toy

i don't get it

better try to find a more experienced, serious Boss

On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:39:34 UTC, dennis luehring wrote:
> Am 31.10.2013 15:29, schrieb eles:
>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:28:05 UTC, dennis luehring
>> wrote:
>>> 3. "My boss is right: is just a toy pretending to be serious"
>
> better try to find a more experienced, serious Boss

Do you offer yourself for his job?

Maybe because I don't want to have a code base written in several languages?

And seriously, about your former argument about the importance of the extension in being serious or not: accepting arbitrary extension was the reason for C++ doom?

Seriously, I never hear somebody citing that the purpose why D exists is to correct the C++... file extension problem.

I hear about a lot other reasons, but not this one.

File content should have nothing to do with extension, it is as good part of name as any other. Adding any extra meaning to it is just some DOS legacy.