November 17
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 22:36:18 UTC, Greg Strong wrote:
> WASM is important.

y'all should watch my dconf thing from last year and the new one this saturday too.

we already have some wasm.

though there's a few points that are waiting on the wasm spec to mature and some things that might need compiler help if you aren't willing to work with some special purpose code. but like the magic i show is that special purpose code doesn't necessarily have to be much different.
November 17
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 21:00:48 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote:
> # A Long Term Vision for the D programming language
>.....

Here is my vision for D .. to "create interesting software more easily" (D. Ritchie).

That should be it's value proposition.

Indeed, that should become its motto.
November 17

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 21:59:19 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:

>

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 21:00:48 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote:

>

A Long Term Vision for the D programming language

D -- The best programming language!

Very well written!

I agree with everything, except:

  • I don't think Rust has won
  • I think betterC might still have a place (or rather, some kind of runtime-less D)
  • I think string interpolation could be useful

Other than that, gold star from me! 🌟

It has won, time to accept it,

https://source.android.com/setup/build/rust/building-rust-modules/overview

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dev-environment/rust/rust-for-windows

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Rust-Linux-Kernel-Linaro-2021

November 17
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 23:55:03 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Why not start by synching github issues into bugzilla using those bots?

there is already a tool https://github.com/wilzbach/bugzilla-migration/blob/master/bugzilla2github.py

that is was written in python, I consider vindication for my claims in the post.

> Walter's main priority nowadays seems to be @safe memory management without GC and C/C++ interoperability.
> Andrei's current main priority seems to be more specifically @safe reference counting.

People can change their mind.


> That's why Walter and Andrei want things to be @safe.

As said, that is to little, safe by default with GC only.
If you want to shoot your foot, you must be required to write *system*.

>> To summarize, GC and GC only.
>> ...
>
> See above. It does not seem to me like that aligns well with the goals of W&A.

People can change their mind.

>
>> ...
>> 
>> ## Leadership
>> 
>> I'm writing this section as one of the last.
>> This is maybe one of the most important parts, but also the hardest
>> to validate.
>> When reading the forum, or the github PR's I get the feeling that people think
>> that D is a consensus driven, meritocracy.
>> That is not the case, and that is okay.
>> ...
>
> (Earlier you noted there is a low number of contributors.)

I don't see any contradiction in these two statements.
Please elaborate.

> Even if there was a consensus on that, you already noted that it does not matter. This requires massive refactoring of the DMD code base.

It requires a rewrite, so?


November 17

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 21:59:19 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:

>
  • I don't think Rust has won
    Please read the joke as well:
    You are in the first stage of grief: Denial
>
  • I think betterC might still have a place (or rather, some kind of runtime-less D)
  • I think string interpolation could be useful

The way I see it is that if you have betterC aka. no runtime aka. no GC
you can not work properly with arrays which makes programming really
unpleasant in D.

Also you can not have string interpolation without dynamic memory.

November 17

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 22:46:24 UTC, bachmeier wrote:

> >

Batteries included, all of them, even the small flat strange ones.

I agree. But only if the batteries are high quality (bug-free) and high quality (make it easy to do the important tasks). Otherwise it's better to leave them as third-party libraries that are simple to add to your project.

No, nothing is every bug-free. Having stuff in code.dlang reduces
visibility of the thing, which reduces the number of people using it
with increases the number of bugs.
Please get me right, I'm not saying get any crap code into phobos,
but aiming for perfect will get us nothing, when aiming for good will
get us a lot.

>

We don't want to promote it, but it does have an appeal to current C programmers, who often prefer an updated version of C to learning a new language.

Frankly, who cares the C programs are not graduating 12 week coding camps
these days they are retiring.
Consider, that at least for now, we have limited resources why waste them?

>

It makes sense to publish preprocessed versions of popular C libraries as Dub packages/standalone files that can be included in D programs. This can, to some extent, be done with what we already have.

Again, visibility and friction.

>

Finally, on interop, there should also be support for R, Matlab, Julia, and Fortran. D is a natural fit for data processing. It also would not be that hard, since all of those languages are designed to work easily with C libraries. And all but Matlab (not sure about that one) are easy to call from D.

Fair enough, I didn't list all candidates as the vision was already quite long.
I think working on interop with different languages can be parallelized
quite well.

November 17
On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 07:25:46 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote:
> Also you can not have string interpolation without dynamic memory.

Both of the string interpolation proposals were specifically designed to permit this.
November 17

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 07:37:24 UTC, Elronnd wrote:

>

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 07:25:46 UTC, Robert Schadek wrote:

>

Also you can not have string interpolation without dynamic memory.

Both of the string interpolation proposals were specifically designed to permit this.

And I believe this ties into his "Let's not aim for perfect" angle, which I agree with.

If anything, this thread simply shows yet again the extreme divide in D's userbase.

"Get rid of GC"
"Make GC optional"
"Fully embrace GC"

"Go after the C devs"
"Go after the higher level devs"

"I want to be able to write kernals in D"
"And I want to be able to do embedded stuff in D!"
"Well, I want to make games in D"
"Humph, I want to make Native applications in D"
"Jokes on you, I want to make a web server in D"
"pfft, I just want to make quick scripts and tools!"
[All the above are on differing levels of requirements regarding high-level and low-level features]

"Don't you dare touch Phobos with your GC trash"
"Pretty please actually put stuff into Phobos"

"Don't you dare add features to this language, just write a library"
"Pretty please add native sumtypes so it's actually possible to debug when things don't compile"

"Add string interpolation"
"but it has to also work with printf because Walter says so"
"also not like that since it needs to work in -betterC @nogc nothrow pure const shared"
"but it also needs to be easy to use because people from other languages expect things to just work"
"but that means we can't use @nogc which is a hard requirement for the GC-phobics"
"but but but"
"fuck it let's just scrap it so everyone loses out, just write mixin(interp!"") instead, nerds"

D - the language of endless bickering and lack of cohesive action.

Still absolutely love the language though, but we really need to get ourselves together at some point, because we're stuck in an endless loop of trying to be everything yet nothing.

November 17

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 07:54:26 UTC, SealabJaster wrote:

>

Still absolutely love the language though, but we really need to get ourselves together at some point, because we're stuck in an endless loop of trying to be everything yet nothing.

I've been saying that D should provide options.
I'll give you everything. You can assemble it yourself.
Like VIM, you map your keys yourself.

November 17

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 07:54:26 UTC, SealabJaster wrote:

>

D - the language of endless bickering and lack of cohesive action.

Still absolutely love the language though, but we really need to get ourselves together at some point, because we're stuck in an endless loop of trying to be everything yet nothing.

Sounds to me like my argument for leadership.