October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 19:00:47 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> In D's  case 99% of all problems are due to lack of resources so
>
> Not resources. Process... Expanding the feature set... Rather than narrowing down the focus.
>
> Like, there is no point in planning for a borrow checker if you don't have people with the right know how and have plenty on the plate.  It's a great idea, but probably too late.  That's not a dismissive statement, that's just realism.
>
> So why was it put on the table?
First its enhancement not a problem. But maybe its distinction without a difference. D already have memory safety guaranties but it relies on GC to do that. What Walter wants is for simple
void* p = malloc();
free(p);
to be marked @safe. Just by looking at it its clear that is safe but current compiler cant prove it. So he wants to implement additional checks based on control flow graph. This is not like Rust's borrow checker. Its much simpler and one motivated man can do it.

> As I stated elsewhere in this thread, languages become popular because they have a use case where they are superior (even if the language isn't)

Go, Rust, Swift, Kotlin all new languages had backer. I wish that language adoption was as you said but real word data contradicts your view. The only language might fit your example is Ruby but it wasn't that popular.

I feel like whenever I say AEOA you read that and the go to talk about ÆØÅ. Close but not what I was talking. I really dont enjoy that kind of conversation.

Oftopic: https://youtu.be/f488uJAQgmw


October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 19:49:55 UTC, welkam wrote:
> safe but current compiler cant prove it. So he wants to implement additional checks based on control flow graph. This is not like Rust's borrow checker. Its much simpler and one motivated man can do it.

Ok, I missed that clarification.
So, it will only work sometimes.
So, you cannot use it reliably in generic code.

I find that troublesome. Maybe it isn't, but it sounds very problematic.

> contradicts your view. The only language might fit your example is Ruby but it wasn't that popular.

Perl, Python, Php, and many smaller languages have built a strong following without corporate backing so, no.

What is true is that corporates often provides the superior use case for a language, but that is a different issue.


> I feel like whenever I say AEOA you read that and the go to talk about ÆØÅ. Close but not what I was talking.

I don't see your point. I feel that you assume too much.


October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 19:19:01 UTC, welkam wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 19:06:29 UTC, GreatSam4sure wrote:
>> Our human relationship is little we must manage it well to grow big
>
> That requires for adults to behave like adults

Right.

Off-topic: https://youtu.be/f488uJAQgmw

October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 16:26:07 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 15:24:09 UTC, Rumbu wrote:
>> The general attitude "OOP is bad, let's use a struct instead".
>
> I don't know what to do about this. I prefer structs myself.
>
>> The fact that objects are by default allocated using gc.
>
> Only if you use `new`. And if you don't, then you'll have to worry about memory management.
>
>> There is no language construct to use RAII or heap application on objects. We had scope but it was deprecated.
>
> That would be news to me. Even if `scope obj = new MyClass;` got deprecated, there are library solutions.
>
>> The fact that class encapsulation is not fully implemented. Private is not so private.
>
> This is by design and isn't going to be changed. Classes can be in their own module if needed.
>
>> Structs cannot implement interfaces (see next point for usage).
>
> Also by design, unless you want something like Rust's traits or Haskell's typeclasses. But none of this is OOP.

It's really disappointing to me how poor the communication is on both sides of this exchange.

- On Rubmu's side, the complaints are expressed in a way that makes it hard to understand what the actual problems are that he's encountered using D.
- On your side, Átila, the responses seem to be aimed primarily at dismissing or invalidating Rumbu's complaints, rather than attempting to understand them or asking for clarification.

There's a lot that could be improved here. Since you, Átila, are the one in a position of authority, you have a much greater opportunity to set a constructive tone for conversations like these going forward, so I'll focus your responses.

- It's true that a complaint about "general attitude" is not actionable. Instead of dismissing it, however, you could take the opportunity to ask for clarification. For example: is there a specific improvement to D that you'd like to see given a higher priority?

- It's true that D provides several alternatives to `new` and the GC for heap allocation, but it's likely that Rumbu wouldn't be making this complainy if those alternatives already solved his problems. Again, there's an opportunity here to ask clarifying questions: have you tried D's current alternatives to `new`? If not, why not? If so, are there specific ways in which you'd like to see them improved?

- It's true that class-level encapsulation can be achieved using D's module system, but it's not obvious, and it requires extra work. Possible follow-up questions: have you tried using the proposed solution of putting classes in their own modules? If not, why not? If so, did you run into any issues with it?

- It's true that structs can't implement interfaces, but there are reasons why someone might want them to. You might ask: what problems has this limitation caused you? Have you tried any of the existing library solutions, like `std.typecons.wrap`?

Don't take this harshly--effective communication is really, really difficult. Most people, including myself, get it wrong most of the time. It takes a lot of time, effort, and practice. If you can manage it, though, the rewards are huge: people will feel understood and listened-to when they talk to you, and you'll be able to avoid pointless arguments and focus on actually getting stuff done.
October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 19:49:55 UTC, welkam wrote:
> I really dont enjoy that kind of conversation.
>


Hello welkam,

here is a pro tip: just don't engage in a conversation with Ola and Chris.

Here is some helpful context: https://www.mail-archive.com/digitalmars-d@puremagic.com/msg209018.html

Chris is of the same ilk and they will defend each other when pointed out for what they are.

They are also _good_ debaters, having devoted their life to being right on Internet forums of languages they don't use, and don't like.

Who does that kind of thing? Not people with a lot of achievements. Your annoying conversation is joy for them. When they are dead, noone will remember anything they have created or done.


October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 20:11:58 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 19:49:55 UTC, welkam wrote:
>> I really dont enjoy that kind of conversation.
>>
>
>
> Hello welkam,
>
> here is a pro tip: just don't engage in a conversation with Ola and Chris.
>
> Here is some helpful context: https://www.mail-archive.com/digitalmars-d@puremagic.com/msg209018.html
>
> Chris is of the same ilk and they will defend each other when pointed out for what they are.
>
> They are also _good_ debaters, having devoted their life to being right on Internet forums of languages they don't use, and don't like.
>
> Who does that kind of thing? Not people with a lot of achievements. Your annoying conversation is joy for them. When they are dead, noone will remember anything they have created or done.

We trust a turning around for all in this forum. There is always a space for a change.
we are advocate a new dawn for D and all in this forum
October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 17:23:29 UTC, welkam wrote:

> In D's case 99% of all problems are due to lack of resources so advocating for change will have 0 results.

In D's case 99% of all problems are due to lack of understanding why there's a lack of resources ...


October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 18:00:39 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 16:50:15 UTC, Rumbu wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Also by design, unless you want something like Rust's traits or Haskell's typeclasses. But none of this is OOP.
>>
>> Being by design, doesn't mean it's correct.
>>
>> I'm starting to understand Chris.
>
> Private to the module *is* correct in D.
>
> http://dlang.org/blog/2018/11/06/lost-in-translation-encapsulation/

That's debatable: https://github.com/aliak00/d-isms/blob/master/da-faq/06-access-levels.md
October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 20:11:58 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 19:49:55 UTC, welkam wrote:
>> I really dont enjoy that kind of conversation.
>>
>
>
> Hello welkam,
>
> here is a pro tip: just don't engage in a conversation with Ola and Chris.
>
> Here is some helpful context: https://www.mail-archive.com/digitalmars-d@puremagic.com/msg209018.html
>
> Chris is of the same ilk and they will defend each other when pointed out for what they are.
>
> They are also _good_ debaters, having devoted their life to being right on Internet forums of languages they don't use, and don't like.
>
> Who does that kind of thing? Not people with a lot of achievements. Your annoying conversation is joy for them. When they are dead, noone will remember anything they have created or done.

That message you linked reads like it was written by me.
October 17, 2019
On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 20:01:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

> Perl, Python, Php, and many smaller languages have built a strong following without corporate backing so, no.

If you exclude a small company named Google, the part about Python is kind of correct. From the very beginning, when they were indeed small, it's my understand that Python has been an approved language. They used it so much that they eventually hired Guido.

You can debate about Perl and Php's support, but they were uniquely-positioned languages as the WWW took off. That was kind of a big deal.

These days it's hard to give someone a compelling reason to adopt any particular language. There are so many good alternatives no matter what you want to do.