On Sunday, 5 June 2016 at 13:56:55 UTC, David wrote:

> I encountered quite a few broken links.

The links in the library menu under core->stdcpp are 404 in /phobos (the corresponding links in /library just point to empty pages).

I am not sure how to fix these.

On 06/06/2016 12:05 AM, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
> The links in the library menu under core->stdcpp are 404 in /phobos (the
> corresponding links in /library just point to empty pages).
>
> I am not sure how to fix these.

Works in /phobos-prerelease and /library-prerelease.

On Monday, 6 June 2016 at 18:49:21 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
> Works in /phobos-prerelease and /library-prerelease.

Thanks.

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:14:08 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 15:40:28 UTC, Seb wrote:
>>I heard this a lot too.
>> "You don't have a web server in your standard libary?? It's 2016!"
>
> Just to be clear, it's not a good idea to have a full blown server in your stdlib. Non-toy web servers are complicated pieces of software involving > 10KLOC. Not only that, but there are many ways to skin a cat in this field. Different products need varying, sometimes mutually exclusive, features from their servers.
>
> Therefore, I don't web servers are good candidates for standardization.

Here is one argument to have a (minimalistic) web server in Phobos: Testing. You don't want to require internet access for testing. You don't want the (heavy) vibed dependency just for the unittests.

Specific use case: https://github.com/ikod/dlang-requests/issues/11#issuecomment-229354711

As someone who has recently chosen D for a major project (a game/engine), I can confidently say that the biggest distinction for me between getting start with D versus something like Go is developer tooling. For Go I installed Go, installed a go intellij plugin, which automatically installed gocode and I was up and running. For D I had to install DMD (and learn about all the different compilers)[0], install dub, install workspace-d, install visual studio code (because the visual studio plugin had a linking error), and then I could finally have a complete setup.

I think if dub were distributed with DMD, along with a utility to install global programs (that way a D plugin can just call `dub install workspace-d` or similar), it would make it very easy to get started with D.

For reference, Cargo (Rust's package manager) allows `cargo install` https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1200-cargo-install.md

[0] As much as the "reference compiler vs faster compiler" distinction, I feel like languages that have a single official compiler that you can use for development and production (e.g. Go/Rust) are much friendlier.

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 22:48:44 UTC, dalailambda wrote:

> I think if dub were distributed with DMD, along with a utility to install global programs (that way a D plugin can just call `dub install workspace-d` or similar), it would make it very easy to get started with D.

DUB only recently hit 1.0. Now that it has, it is planned to begin bundling it with DMD.

>
> [0] As much as the "reference compiler vs faster compiler" distinction, I feel like languages that have a single official compiler that you can use for development and production (e.g. Go/Rust) are much friendlier.

DMD *is* the official compiler. That's what a reference compiler is. The other compilers are there for those who want them and are developed independently of DMD. It's no different from the situation with Java (with the exception that Oracle doesn't link to other compilers on their JDK download page). No one says you *have* to use LDC or GDC for production, or that you can't use DMD. It's just as a recommendation for those who care about squeezing out every last drop of performance.

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 23:48:29 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 22:48:44 UTC, dalailambda wrote:
>
>> I think if dub were distributed with DMD, along with a utility to install global programs (that way a D plugin can just call `dub install workspace-d` or similar), it would make it very easy to get started with D.
>
> DUB only recently hit 1.0. Now that it has, it is planned to begin bundling it with DMD.

Oh, and I forgot to add that DUB is not intended generally intended as a package installer. That said, you've got 'dub fetch package-name' already, which will pull a package down into the cache. If it's an executable, you can then do 'dub run package-name'.

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 23:48:29 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> DMD *is* the official compiler. That's what a reference compiler is. The other compilers are there for those who want them and are developed independently of DMD. It's no different from the situation with Java (with the exception that Oracle doesn't link to other compilers on their JDK download page). No one says you *have* to use LDC or GDC for production, or that you can't use DMD. It's just as a recommendation for those who care about squeezing out every last drop of performance.

Sure, but overwhelmingly the community suggests to use DMD for development for fast compilation speeds and then use LDC/GDC for production. I'm not saying that the law mandates it but the impression I get as a newcommer to the community is that DMD is the ugly stepchild that isn't suitable for real world use case.

As an example, look at whenever a benchmark comes up, someone will say "have you tried compiling with LDC?". I feel the is relevant since, as a systems language, performance should be a feature.

You know what's kinda sad, there are only 2,052 question on SO with the "d" tag. I think if more d questions could be answered on SO then it would make googling d related things a lot easier. Another problem with SO is that it uses "d" instead of "dlang", "dlang" is generally better for google.

On Friday, 1 July 2016 at 00:08:51 UTC, dalailambda wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 23:48:29 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> DMD *is* the official compiler. That's what a reference compiler is. The other compilers are there for those who want them and are developed independently of DMD. It's no different from the situation with Java (with the exception that Oracle doesn't link to other compilers on their JDK download page). No one says you *have* to use LDC or GDC for production, or that you can't use DMD. It's just as a recommendation for those who care about squeezing out every last drop of performance.
>
> Sure, but overwhelmingly the community suggests to use DMD for development for fast compilation speeds and then use LDC/GDC for production. I'm not saying that the law mandates it but the impression I get as a newcommer to the community is that DMD is the ugly stepchild that isn't suitable for real world use case.
>
> As an example, look at whenever a benchmark comes up, someone will say "have you tried compiling with LDC?". I feel the is relevant since, as a systems language, performance should be a feature.

It's been suggested that DMD/LDC/GDC could be combined into a bundle, say DCC, and when you call

DCC hello.d

it will call dmd hello.d,

and if you call

DCC -fast hello.d

it will call ldc hello.d or gdc hello.d

This will give newcomers a different experience.