On Friday, November 22, 2013 11:20:41 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-11-22 09:56, eles wrote:
> > int[$] x=[1,2,3];
> 
> This would hopefully not be a braking change. The dollar sign can't be used like that currently?

What would that even mean? The only thing that $ is used for is for representing the length of the array in an indexing or slicing operation. That statement is trying to use it in a declaration, which is nonsensical.

- Jonathan M Davis

Jonathan M Davis:

> What would that even mean? The only thing that $ is used for is for
> representing the length of the array in an indexing or slicing operation. That
> statement is trying to use it in a declaration, which is nonsensical.

It's not nonsensical, it's a new tiny feature. It means the lenght of x is statically determined by the literal. So this:

int[$] x=[1,2,3];

means:

int[3] x=[1,2,3];

But this is not a breaking change, it's just an additive change, so it's not urgent.

Bye,
bearophile

On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 15:56:14 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> background of language designers.

Which just reinforces my point. It is the language designer (creator) which dictates the result of the language. Being a corporation isn't what is going to drive it (much).

On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 16:24:25 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 15:56:14 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> background of language designers.
>
> Which just reinforces my point. It is the language designer (creator) which dictates the result of the language. Being a corporation isn't what is going to drive it (much).

But being a corporation bars the community from influencing the language design. It reinforces self-righteousness and tunnel vision, committee thinking. And of course the language will go in a direction that suits its application within the corporation (web, gaming and the like). There are just too many things attached to a language developed by a corporation, things that have nothing to do with the language as such. (And don't forget BIG EGOS, we tend to forget that language designers are human beings with all their flaws and shortcomings).

On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 13:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 12:34:23 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 10:29:35 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>> Yes, yes, yes. You are of course right that corporate backing gives a language a boost, even if it's a mediocre language. But as soon as corporate thinking comes into a language (profit, ideology, branding, hype and whatnot), it's doomed. D has to breathe, and I admire all the people who have made D happen, and who are making it happen. I've learned a lot just by listening (well, reading).
>>
>> You're talking about corporate _management_ rather than corporate backing.  The former can obviously lead to problems (though it doesn't have to) -- the latter is almost invariably good, as it means there's someone who can serve as guarantor that any necessary work will get done.
>
> You cannot separate the two. Management will creep into development sooner or later. E.g. one day D might implement features that have to do with what Facebook needs more than features that programmers need in general. So a module std.webshite.upload.latest.picture gets all the attention while std.reallyhandy is being neglected.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that this is happening, it's not, and it is good that Facebook now uses D. But the two should be separate. What D does should not be influenced by any company.

On 11/22/13 9:38 AM, Chris wrote:
> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 13:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 12:34:23 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 10:29:35 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>>> Yes, yes, yes. You are of course right that corporate backing gives
>>>> a language a boost, even if it's a mediocre language. But as soon as
>>>> corporate thinking comes into a language (profit, ideology,
>>>> branding, hype and whatnot), it's doomed. D has to breathe, and I
>>>> admire all the people who have made D happen, and who are making it
>>>> happen. I've learned a lot just by listening (well, reading).
>>>
>>> You're talking about corporate _management_ rather than corporate
>>> backing.  The former can obviously lead to problems (though it
>>> doesn't have to) -- the latter is almost invariably good, as it means
>>> there's someone who can serve as guarantor that any necessary work
>>> will get done.
>>
>> You cannot separate the two. Management will creep into development
>> sooner or later. E.g. one day D might implement features that have to
>> do with what Facebook needs more than features that programmers need
>> in general. So a module std.webshite.upload.latest.picture gets all
>> the attention while std.reallyhandy is being neglected.
>
> To be clear, this doesn't mean that this is happening, it's not, and it
> is good that Facebook now uses D. But the two should be separate. What D
> does should not be influenced by any company.

Oh please.

Andrei

On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 17:43:06 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 11/22/13 9:38 AM, Chris wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 13:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 12:34:23 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 10:29:35 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>>>> Yes, yes, yes. You are of course right that corporate backing gives
>>>>> a language a boost, even if it's a mediocre language. But as soon as
>>>>> corporate thinking comes into a language (profit, ideology,
>>>>> branding, hype and whatnot), it's doomed. D has to breathe, and I
>>>>> admire all the people who have made D happen, and who are making it
>>>>> happen. I've learned a lot just by listening (well, reading).
>>>>
>>>> You're talking about corporate _management_ rather than corporate
>>>> backing.  The former can obviously lead to problems (though it
>>>> doesn't have to) -- the latter is almost invariably good, as it means
>>>> there's someone who can serve as guarantor that any necessary work
>>>> will get done.
>>>
>>> You cannot separate the two. Management will creep into development
>>> sooner or later. E.g. one day D might implement features that have to
>>> do with what Facebook needs more than features that programmers need
>>> in general. So a module std.webshite.upload.latest.picture gets all
>>> the attention while std.reallyhandy is being neglected.
>>
>> To be clear, this doesn't mean that this is happening, it's not, and it
>> is good that Facebook now uses D. But the two should be separate. What D
>> does should not be influenced by any company.
>
> Oh please.
>
> Andrei

Yeah, you're right.  Sometimes I get carried away and dramatize things.

On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 16:34:06 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 16:24:25 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 15:56:14 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> background of language designers.
>>
>> Which just reinforces my point. It is the language designer (creator) which dictates the result of the language. Being a corporation isn't what is going to drive it (much).
>
> But being a corporation bars the community from influencing the language design.

It doesn't, it is the creator which causes it. I think Go and C# both prove that. Go has corporate backing, but it would be silly to say the design is coming from Google and not the creators (though they claim the community has influence in its direction). C# is IMO a great language which I think is silly to claim had anything but corporate interest driving it.

On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 18:11:34 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 16:34:06 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 16:24:25 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 November 2013 at 15:56:14 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>>> background of language designers.
>>>
>>> Which just reinforces my point. It is the language designer (creator) which dictates the result of the language. Being a corporation isn't what is going to drive it (much).
>>
>> But being a corporation bars the community from influencing the language design.
>
> It doesn't, it is the creator which causes it. I think Go and C# both prove that. Go has corporate backing, but it would be silly to say the design is coming from Google and not the creators (though they claim the community has influence in its direction). C# is IMO a great language which I think is silly to claim had anything but corporate interest driving it.

I remember the hype around C# when it was claimed that it was better than Java, then D. True or not, I don't like that kind of propaganda. I think it's better if a company uses a language, but the design is done somewhere else.

On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 19:42:21 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> Go's team was unable to add generics to the language.

Not adding generics was Go's deliberate decision. For that matter, D got its type system all wrong compared to Haskell. So why won't we all move there?