On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 09:13:04 UTC, claptrap wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 23:45:48 UTC, Theo wrote:
>> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 21:08:29 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 04:24:11 UTC, Theo wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 03:18:09 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 09:24:57 UTC,
>
>>> My brother tried "just walking to the north pole"
>>>
>>> He died.
>>
>> Any response to that would come across a being insensitive, no matter how well intentioned.
>
> Well he was drunk and wearing flip flops.
>
> What i might be trying to say is that "just do it" is to psychology what "stuff falls down" is to physics.

No. I do not at all recommend the Nike theory in regards to the practice of psychology ;-)

The practice of Psychology must be informed by science and expert opinion, at all times.

But getting back to D....(which IS the context in which I promote the Nike theory)

This is why D needs an 'experimental' version.

An experimental version enables the opportunity to demonstrate the worth of an idea.

Having only a release version just discourages ideas. The bar is just to high for a release version.

Of course, with only a release version, the Nike theory poses some risk.

So Nike Theory applied to an Experimental version, is what I really mean.

On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 09:13:04 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>
> What i might be trying to say is that "just do it" is to psychology what "stuff falls down" is to physics.

No. I do not at all recommend the Nike theory in regards to the practice of psychology ;-)

The practice of Psychology must be informed by science and expert opinion, at all times.

But getting back to D....(which IS the context in which I promote the Nike theory)

This is why D needs an 'experimental' version.

An experimental version enables the opportunity to demonstrate the worth of an idea.

Having only a release version just discourages ideas. The bar is just to high for a release version.

Of course, with only a release version, the Nike theory poses some risk.

So Nike Theory applied to an Experimental version, is what I really mean.

On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 10:13:11 UTC, Theo wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 09:13:04 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>>
>> What i might be trying to say is that "just do it" is to psychology what "stuff falls down" is to physics.
>
> No. I do not at all recommend the Nike theory in regards to the practice of psychology ;-)
>
> The practice of Psychology must be informed by science and expert opinion, at all times.
>
> But getting back to D....(which IS the context in which I promote the Nike theory)
>
> This is why D needs an 'experimental' version.
>
> An experimental version enables the opportunity to demonstrate the worth of an idea.
>
> Having only a release version just discourages ideas. The bar is just to high for a release version.
>
> Of course, with only a release version, the Nike theory poses some risk.
>
> So Nike Theory applied to an Experimental version, is what I really mean.
On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 10:13:11 UTC, Theo wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 09:13:04

> So Nike Theory applied to an Experimental version, is what I really mean.

What you actually said was

"It the *universal* principle of how to actually get things done."

I cant be both *universal* and only applicable in some circumstances.

On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 00:51:35 UTC, Theo wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 14:39:08 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>
> I'd also like to highlight, the difference between your approach to the request for class private members within a module, and the approach of Dennis Korpel, who kept the personal 'stuff' out of it, and just focused on how it could be done, and not whether it should be done.
>
> That kind of response by Dennis, is the kind of response that is 'motivating'.

Did it motivate you to contribute to D? Did you write a DIP for class private?

How exactly did Dennis motivate you to help D? You seem motivated to post in the forum but little else.


> I wish there were more people like Dennis in the D 'community'.

You like Dennis because he gave you what you wanted. It doesn't take a psychology degree to understand that.

And why put 'community' in quotes? That makes it seem derisive or sarcastic? Is that your intent? Because it's a naive thing to do if you want people to listen to you.


> The constant 'obstructionist approach', personal vitriole approach, and 'go write a DIP approach', which has come to define too much of the D forums, and the response of too many in the D 'community', at least for me, is not at all motivating.

Why should anyone do what you say? You're nobody, just a random lurker in the forum like me. I don't expect anyone to listen to me let alone do what I say.

The people doing the work can do what they want, organize themselves how they want. It's mind blowing to me that you see a bunch of people working on something and you expect them to just do what you think. Like you are so enlightened that everyone should listen to you.

Just to be clear I have nothing to do with D officialy.


> If their were a rotating stewardship for D, I'd be voting for Dennis to be on the next round of stewardship (even if he never supports class private finding its way into D ;-)

Why would you get a vote?

On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 00:51:35 UTC, Theo wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 14:39:08 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>
> I'd also like to highlight, the difference between your approach to the request for class private members within a module, and the approach of Dennis Korpel, who kept the personal 'stuff' out of it, and just focused on how it could be done, and not whether it should be done.
>
> That kind of response by Dennis, is the kind of response that is 'motivating'.

Did it motivate you to contribute to D? Did you write a DIP for class private?

How exactly did Dennis motivate you to help D? You seem motivated to post in the forum but little else.


> I wish there were more people like Dennis in the D 'community'.

You like Dennis because he gave you what you wanted. It doesn't take a psychology degree to understand that.

And why put 'community' in quotes? That makes it seem derisive or sarcastic? Is that your intent? Because it's a naive thing to do if you want people to listen to you.


> The constant 'obstructionist approach', personal vitriole approach, and 'go write a DIP approach', which has come to define too much of the D forums, and the response of too many in the D 'community', at least for me, is not at all motivating.

Why should anyone do what you say? You're nobody, just a random lurker in the forum like me. I don't expect anyone to listen to me let alone do what I say.

The people doing the work can do what they want, organize themselves how they want. It's mind blowing to me that you see a bunch of people working on something and you expect them to just do what you think. Like you are so enlightened that everyone should listen to you.

Just to be clear I have nothing to do with D officialy.


> If their were a rotating stewardship for D, I'd be voting for Dennis to be on the next round of stewardship (even if he never supports class private finding its way into D ;-)

Why would you get a vote?

On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 12:42:50 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>
> Why should anyone do what you say? You're nobody, just a random lurker in the forum like me. I don't expect anyone to listen to me let alone do what I say.
>

Well, it sure sounds like you're just out to deride me, with no other objective other than that.

So I'll just ignore most of what you said.

However, where we do seem to differentiate, is that I'm not a random lurker, like you announce yourself to be. I've been writing small utilities in D for over a decade now.

So I've invested a lot of my personal time in the use of this programming language, and like others who have done the same, I have gripes, and ideas, as well.

I'm guessing you're one of the few, but loud, people that has an idealogical hatred towards private(this) ??

I can fight fire with fire too ... sadly, that's often what I have to do in these forums, as demonstrated clearly by your posts.

On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 12:42:50 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>
> How exactly did Dennis motivate you to help D? You seem motivated to post in the forum but little else.
>
>

Because he (Dennis) made me interested in the compiler itself, by showing me how I could have private(this).

Before that, I don't recall ever looking at the compiler source code.

Now, I have my own 'fork' of the compiler source code, that has private(this) enabled by default, and also has a number of other features that I make the compiler do, to work for me (rather than the other way around).

That's why I'd vote for him. Cause he showed me how to do it myself, and as a result got me motivated to work out how to make the compiler work for me.

The current D leaders (and many in these forums) just wanted to focus on obstruction, and ensuring that the idea could not be propagated in these forums.

Another reason I'd vote for Dennis, is because he combined BeerConf and Mario....  ;-)

https://youtu.be/f9RzegZmnUc?t=2580

On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 23:24:50 UTC, Theo wrote:
>
> ....
> The current D leaders (and many in these forums) just wanted to focus on obstruction, and ensuring that the idea could not be propagated in these forums.
>


https://youtu.be/G6b62HmsO6M?t=1600

On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 23:31:45 UTC, Theo wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 May 2023 at 23:24:50 UTC, Theo wrote:
>>
>> ....
>> The current D leaders (and many in these forums) just wanted to focus on obstruction, and ensuring that the idea could not be propagated in these forums.
>>
>
>
> https://youtu.be/G6b62HmsO6M?t=1600

and btw. I've never supported the idea the private should be changed (as this video suggests).

private should NOT be changed.

private(this) should be added.

Then I won't have to use so many modules....

I want my Ship module to contain my ships, and the unittests as well, while ensuring private parts remain private.

To ensure they remain private, at the moment, i have to put ever ship in it own class.

Then, I need yet another module for unittests.

n.. number of modules are now required - just because there is no 'private(this)'.

On 5/15/2023 10:58 PM, WilliamJames wrote:
> The motivations of the delusional self can often lead to suffering.
> 
> https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00124/full


This is way off topic for the forum. Please stop.