Thread overview | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
June 04, 2014 Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Of possible interest. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/278twt/panel_systems_programming_in_2014_and_beyond/ Andrei |
June 04, 2014 Re: Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:13:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Of possible interest. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/278twt/panel_systems_programming_in_2014_and_beyond/
>
> Andrei
Nice panel. Not much really new there, but gives an idea of what you language designers are thinking about and who you are. I was never much interested in Go, but after seeing Pike for the first time, was a bit more interested in his language. Funny to see Bjarne swinging his legs on the high stool like a kid. :)
|
June 10, 2014 Re: Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:13:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Of possible interest. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/278twt/panel_systems_programming_in_2014_and_beyond/
>
> Andrei
IMHO, the coolest thing was when Rob Pike told about the tool they made for automatically upgrading user source code to their next language version.
That should be quite easy to implement now in D, and once done, would give much needed room for breaking changes we feel should be done. Pike seemed to be extremely satisfied they did it.
|
June 12, 2014 Re: Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to justme | On 6/10/2014 12:35 PM, justme wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:13:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Of possible interest.
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/278twt/panel_systems_programming_in_2014_and_beyond/
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> IMHO, the coolest thing was when Rob Pike told about the tool they made
> for automatically upgrading user source code to their next language
> version.
>
> That should be quite easy to implement now in D, and once done, would
> give much needed room for breaking changes we feel should be done. Pike
> seemed to be extremely satisfied they did it.
Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable trusting such a tool. Besides, I find that upgrading a codebase to a newer language version is one of the most trivial tasks I ever face in software development - even in D.
It's a cute trick, but not a worthwhile use of development resources.
|
June 12, 2014 Re: Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | On 6/12/14, 10:40 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 6/10/2014 12:35 PM, justme wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:13:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Of possible interest.
>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/278twt/panel_systems_programming_in_2014_and_beyond/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> IMHO, the coolest thing was when Rob Pike told about the tool they made
>> for automatically upgrading user source code to their next language
>> version.
>>
>> That should be quite easy to implement now in D, and once done, would
>> give much needed room for breaking changes we feel should be done. Pike
>> seemed to be extremely satisfied they did it.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable trusting such a tool. Besides, I
> find that upgrading a codebase to a newer language version is one of the
> most trivial tasks I ever face in software development - even in D.
>
> It's a cute trick, but not a worthwhile use of development resources.
I very much think the opposite, drawing from many years of hacking into large codebases. I'm completely with Rob here. On a large codebase, even the slightest manual or semi-manual change is painstaking to plan and execute, and almost always suffers of human errors.
I got convinced a dfix tool would be a strategic component of D's offering going forward.
Andrei
|
June 12, 2014 Re: Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 17:52:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/12/14, 10:40 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 6/10/2014 12:35 PM, justme wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:13:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> Of possible interest.
>>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/278twt/panel_systems_programming_in_2014_and_beyond/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>
>>> IMHO, the coolest thing was when Rob Pike told about the tool they made
>>> for automatically upgrading user source code to their next language
>>> version.
>>>
>>> That should be quite easy to implement now in D, and once done, would
>>> give much needed room for breaking changes we feel should be done. Pike
>>> seemed to be extremely satisfied they did it.
>>
>> Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable trusting such a tool. Besides, I
>> find that upgrading a codebase to a newer language version is one of the
>> most trivial tasks I ever face in software development - even in D.
>>
>> It's a cute trick, but not a worthwhile use of development resources.
>
> I very much think the opposite, drawing from many years of hacking into large codebases. I'm completely with Rob here. On a large codebase, even the slightest manual or semi-manual change is painstaking to plan and execute, and almost always suffers of human errors.
>
> I got convinced a dfix tool would be a strategic component of D's offering going forward.
>
>
> Andrei
I thought the same. I was considering writing it, actually. Imagine how having the tool would have influenced the "final by default" discussion. Amongst others, of course.
Atila
|
June 12, 2014 Re: Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu Attachments:
| Yes! That is only one of the reasons to have that ability. Almost more important is automated reasoning about very large codebases. What are the global properties? Where are the "antipatterns" of use and can we fix them? Can we "lint" away large classes of defects? Even Stroustrup believes such tools would be useful for C++. On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 6/12/14, 10:40 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >> On 6/10/2014 12:35 PM, justme wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 at 06:13:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> >>>> Of possible interest. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/278twt/ panel_systems_programming_in_2014_and_beyond/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrei >>>> >>> >>> IMHO, the coolest thing was when Rob Pike told about the tool they made for automatically upgrading user source code to their next language version. >>> >>> That should be quite easy to implement now in D, and once done, would give much needed room for breaking changes we feel should be done. Pike seemed to be extremely satisfied they did it. >>> >> >> Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable trusting such a tool. Besides, I find that upgrading a codebase to a newer language version is one of the most trivial tasks I ever face in software development - even in D. >> >> It's a cute trick, but not a worthwhile use of development resources. >> > > I very much think the opposite, drawing from many years of hacking into large codebases. I'm completely with Rob here. On a large codebase, even the slightest manual or semi-manual change is painstaking to plan and execute, and almost always suffers of human errors. > > I got convinced a dfix tool would be a strategic component of D's offering going forward. > > > Andrei > > -- John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639 Tait Electronics PO Box 1645 Christchurch New Zealand -- ------------------------------ This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended recipient. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this transmission. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or reproduce such email, any attachments, or any part thereof. If you have received a message in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies of the message and any attachments. Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or corrupted during transmission nor can we guarantee that any email or any attachments are free from computer viruses or other conditions which may damage or interfere with recipient data, hardware or software. The recipient relies upon its own procedures and assumes all risk of use and of opening any attachments. ------------------------------ |
June 12, 2014 Re: Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 17:52:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I very much think the opposite, drawing from many years of hacking into large codebases. I'm completely with Rob here. On a large codebase, even the slightest manual or semi-manual change is painstaking to plan and execute, and almost always suffers of human errors.
>
> I got convinced a dfix tool would be a strategic component of D's offering going forward.
It essentially comes down to persistent compiler-as-a-library issue :( Tools like dscanner can help with some of more simple transition cases but anything more complicated is likely to require full semantic analysis.
|
June 12, 2014 Re: Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to justme | On Tuesday, 10 June 2014 at 16:35:23 UTC, justme wrote:
> That should be quite easy to implement now in D
What makes you say this?
|
June 12, 2014 Re: Lang.NEXT panel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dicebot | On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 20:48:10 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 17:52:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I very much think the opposite, drawing from many years of hacking into large codebases. I'm completely with Rob here. On a large codebase, even the slightest manual or semi-manual change is painstaking to plan and execute, and almost always suffers of human errors.
>>
>> I got convinced a dfix tool would be a strategic component of D's offering going forward.
>
> It essentially comes down to persistent compiler-as-a-library issue :( Tools like dscanner can help with some of more simple transition cases but anything more complicated is likely to require full semantic analysis.
If only we had such a tool !
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation