On Friday, 15 January 2016 at 13:20:18 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Friday, 15 January 2016 at 11:11:41 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>> On Thursday, 14 January 2016 at 14:28:05 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> We don't have line number in stack traces
>>
>> Huh? We dont have line numbers in stack traces? I have line numbers, I am using latest dmd, or are you talking about one of the other compilers?
>
> Well I don't, both on OSX and linux, using the latest release. On linux I can do the addr2line dance, but on OSX I can't even do that as it require information that are gone once the program terminate.

dmd generates stack traces on linux now
I think it was either ldc or gdc that did before.

On Friday, 15 January 2016 at 11:58:19 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 January 2016 at 14:28:05 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> [...]
>
> True that. I think it's great to keep evolving the language and making it better, on the other hand, if D is to get serious adoption, then everything, especially the basics like debuggability, quality of codegen and compiler bugs will need to be solid. D as a language is already powerful enough to thrash the competition, this is why we love it. But the reason it's experiencing slow adoption, is because of tooling and general implementation quality, and the lower threshold of tolerance from the general population.

I think what he was pointing out is that many D features are currently barely functioning or not working and adding more features is just a waste of time.

On Friday, 15 January 2016 at 15:06:00 UTC, Yazan D wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:20:18 +0000, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> 
>> Well I don't, both on OSX and linux, using the latest release. On linux I can do the addr2line dance, but on OSX I can't even do that as it require information that are gone once the program terminate.
>
>
> Are you compiling with debug symbols on (-g)? You should get stacktraces on linux.

Yes, with function mangled names and symbol instruction's address. And only if I link with -export-dynamic , which is disabled by default on ld (and, really, shouldn't be necessary).

On Saturday, 16 January 2016 at 03:00:33 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
> On Friday, 15 January 2016 at 11:58:19 UTC, Márcio Martins wrote:
>> On Thursday, 14 January 2016 at 14:28:05 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> True that. I think it's great to keep evolving the language and making it better, on the other hand, if D is to get serious adoption, then everything, especially the basics like debuggability, quality of codegen and compiler bugs will need to be solid. D as a language is already powerful enough to thrash the competition, this is why we love it. But the reason it's experiencing slow adoption, is because of tooling and general implementation quality, and the lower threshold of tolerance from the general population.
>
> I think what he was pointing out is that many D features are currently barely functioning or not working and adding more features is just a waste of time.

Yes, that was the larger point.