dennis luehring, el 31 de October a las 15:28 me escribiste:
> >>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

I think even when the wording isn't the best, what he says is true. Sometimes is hard to sell the language when things that are so trivial and fundamental (as letting file names have arbitrary names, at least for scripts) not only are broken, but are justified by the community.

That's definitely not serious and discouraging.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey you, don't tell me there's no hope at all
Together we stand, divided we fall.

Am 31.10.2013 17:44, schrieb Leandro Lucarella:
> dennis luehring, el 31 de October a las 15:28 me escribiste:
>> >>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
>
> I think even when the wording isn't the best, what he says is true.
> Sometimes is hard to sell the language when things that are so trivial
> and fundamental (as letting file names have arbitrary names, at least
> for scripts) not only are broken, but are justified by the community.
>
> That's definitely not serious and discouraging.
>

sorry for my wording - but pressure sentence like "My boss is right: is just a toy pretending to be serious" aren't fair also

dennis luehring, el 31 de October a las 18:25 me escribiste:
> Am 31.10.2013 17:44, schrieb Leandro Lucarella:
> >dennis luehring, el 31 de October a las 15:28 me escribiste:
> >>>>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
> >
> >I think even when the wording isn't the best, what he says is true. Sometimes is hard to sell the language when things that are so trivial and fundamental (as letting file names have arbitrary names, at least for scripts) not only are broken, but are justified by the community.
> >
> >That's definitely not serious and discouraging.
> >
> 
> sorry for my wording - but pressure sentence like "My boss is right: is just a toy pretending to be serious" aren't fair also

Let's see if this makes both sides happy: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/2700

(I still don't see any reason to enforce any extension, ever, but this at least fixes the more pressing issue, hopefully with less resistance)

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNA ARTISTA HACE JABONES CON SU PROPIA GRASA LUEGO DE UNA LIPOSUCCION
	-- Crónica TV

On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 17:09:09 UTC, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
> Craig Dillabaugh, el 31 de October a las 15:54 me escribiste:
>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:29:34 UTC, eles wrote:
>> >On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:28:05 UTC, dennis luehring
>> >wrote:
>> 
>> This seems like a bit of bikeshedding issue.
>
> It isn't bikeshedding at all, is a functional problem, is key to
> understand that before you keep discussing the issue :)

Since when has understanding an issue been a requirement for
discussing it? As evidence I point you to the comments section on
just about any major news site :)

I think I understand the implications of the current requirement
that d source files end with .d.  However there are some
workarounds that, while certainly a pain, can be applied. Also,
some commentators had valid reasons to keep that status quo.  I
can see systems full of files with .py extensions that are
actually D files and with .rb files that are actually c++ files
and so forth being a bit of a maintenance nightmare for the
person that replaces you (like when you quit your job because the
made you code in Python).

My reason for posting originally was not so much that I didn't
like the request, but simply to point out that whether D is a
serious language, or a toy language, doesn't really hinge on this
issue. All sorts of serious programming environments/tools have
'features' that may certain workflows a pain.

By the way, I like your proposed solution.

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

A computer doesn't mind if its programs are put to purposes that don't
match their names. -- D. Knuth

Well, then God created humans...

On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:39:27 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:34:37 UTC, dennis luehring wrote:
>> Am 31.10.2013 16:22, schrieb eles:
>>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:13:20 UTC, dennis luehring
>>> wrote:
>>>> Am 31.10.2013 16:01, schrieb eles:
>>>>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:57:15 UTC, dennis luehring
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:45, schrieb eles:
>>>>>>> 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
>> no problem :)
>>
>> so tell the story what would happen if D scripts will be without .d?
>> is your Boss then more interested or can you introduce D-scripts then silently - what would happen?
>
> He won't really care as long as I don't ask him to modify his scripts to update the names of those used by me. The latter are already hard-coded in his and others.
>
> Yes, this has a solution: use of hardlinks (of identical-content, different name files). I already explained and acknowledged that in the very first post.
>
> But is cumbersome and unpleasant and bad for backup-ing.

Why not simply rename .d to . then compile, rename back using a script? It might add a few extra seconds for very large projects but otherwise insignificant and should work most of the time.

Basically you'll use the script or wrapper app instead of whatever compile you are using.

On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 09:44:38 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:39:27 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:34:37 UTC, dennis luehring wrote:
>>> Am 31.10.2013 16:22, schrieb eles:
>>>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:13:20 UTC, dennis luehring
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Am 31.10.2013 16:01, schrieb eles:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:57:15 UTC, dennis luehring
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:45, schrieb eles:
>>>>>>>> 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

> Why not simply rename .d to . then compile, rename back using a script? It might add a few extra seconds for very large projects but otherwise insignificant and should work most of the time.
>
> Basically you'll use the script or wrapper app instead of whatever compile you are using.

You are overreacting to a maybe bad joke, but I must say that I really love the solution you propose. Is even better than the one with hardlinks.

The only thing that I don't have yet is a third hand to keep the window open while my fifth foot is doing some tricks with the a crow's nest.

This would be quite a workable workaround, don't you think?

On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 10:10:09 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 at 09:44:38 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:39:27 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:34:37 UTC, dennis luehring wrote:
>>>> Am 31.10.2013 16:22, schrieb eles:
>>>>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 15:13:20 UTC, dennis luehring
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 31.10.2013 16:01, schrieb eles:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:57:15 UTC, dennis luehring
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 31.10.2013 15:45, schrieb eles:
>>>>>>>>> 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

> The only thing that I don't have yet is a third hand to keep the window open while my fifth foot is doing some tricks with the a crow's nest.

I mean, all that to entertain the compiler and keep it happy :)