November 22

On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 22:21:37 UTC, forkit wrote:

>

On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 22:14:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

>

But then we come back to disciplined planning. Which seems to be an unsurmountable challenge.

Creativity and 'disciplined planning' don't combine well .. and never will.

I don't necessarily agree. Regardless, PL design is 5% creativity 95% engineering.

November 22
On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 22:26:41 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 22:21:37 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 22:14:46 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>>
>>> But then we come back to disciplined planning. Which seems to be an unsurmountable challenge.
>>
>> Creativity and 'disciplined planning' don't combine well .. and never will.
>
> I don't necessarily agree. Regardless, PL design is 5% creativity 95% engineering.

Plenty of psychologists would disagree, with your disagreement.

Creativity (by it's very nature) allows you to go in all kinds of directions.

Disciplined planning (by it's very nature) moves you towards a specific direction.

Sure, you can make tradeoffs towards one end of the spectrum or the other.

But I would be shocked, if I ever came across a creative personality (someone who is creative by nature) that willingly embraces disciplined planning.

What you're asking for, seems more directed towards developing a culture of 'controlled creativity'. Good luck with that ;-)

Creativity is not an algorithm.

November 23

On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 18:05:45 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:

>

https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671

Big news.Probably a dictatorship.

November 23
On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 22:59:49 UTC, forkit wrote:
> But I would be shocked, if I ever came across a creative personality (someone who is creative by nature) that willingly embraces disciplined planning.

Architects don’t exist?
Industrial designers dont exist?

Lets not confuse hobbyism with professionalism.

Humans are not unidimensional.

There are even techniques for being more creative...



November 24
On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 17:00:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>
> Absolutely. I agree. You cannot take their anger in itself as a need for changing the product. You can try to find out what the source of their anger is. It could for instance be a communication problem and not a product problem.
>
> [snip]
>
> Maybe. You should of course not accept the solution the complainers present, since it might cause other problems. But if it is a repeating pattern, then you should make it a priority to find a solution that create enthusiasm. By collecting many solution proposal (not a random DIP from a random user) you can get an idea of what options exists and can try to find synergies in the design space.
>
> [snip]
>
> Are we on the same page?

So you do agree that forum complaining often does not correlate with the problems. But still, you were accusing the regulars here of ivory tower attitude towards forum ranting.

In my experience, if you bother to write a concrete and accurate description of your problem here, it usually gets at least taken seriously, if not fixed. So unless you're suggesting we should be appeasing non-specific frustation venting, I don't see how we could do better in this regard. And the latter would definitely not be doable with our manpower.
November 24

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 08:55:27 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:

>

Is there a set of features that, when fully working, will mean that D2 is now finished? Or will it forever be in a state of ongoing feature development?

We all know that properly finishing and polishing the last 10% of a software project takes 90% of the time. Is there a timescale for that? What platforms will it support?

I'd say lets not finish it and start on D3 instead.

November 24

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 17:04:09 UTC, Dukc wrote:

>

So you do agree that forum complaining often does not correlate with the problems. But still, you were accusing the regulars here of ivory tower attitude towards forum ranting.

You are assuming too much now. The complaining do correlate to D not fulfilling their use case needs, the solutions they request may or may not be a good solution.

Optimizing the design to the regulars do not broaden the appeal of the language. In order to broaden the appeal you have to look to those that are not yet enthusiastic.

>

venting, I don't see how we could do better in this regard. And the latter would definitely not be doable with our manpower.

It is quite possible that no individual person can do better. Cooperation around one vision / plan might be necessary. Like Robert pointed out.

November 24

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 17:27:45 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

>

...
It is quite possible that no individual person can do better. Cooperation around one vision / plan might be necessary. Like Robert pointed out.

Yes, precisely. This is how you put some controls on creativity. It's what architects and engineers in fact, must do.

November 24

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 17:27:45 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

>

You are assuming too much now. The complaining do correlate to D not fulfilling their use case needs, the solutions they request may or may not be a good solution.

Optimizing the design to the regulars do not broaden the appeal of the language. In order to broaden the appeal you have to look to those that are not yet enthusiastic.

>

venting, I don't see how we could do better in this regard. And the latter would definitely not be doable with our manpower.

It is quite possible that no individual person can do better. Cooperation around one vision / plan might be necessary. Like Robert pointed out.

The assumption here appears to be that since the people we're trying to attract are not already using D, people already using D can't know what would buy them in, but a word from an outside complainer is more reliable. People know their own motivations best, right?

Sounds reasonable, but Walter has shared personal experiences that warn about that attitude. For example:

>

Related to me by a friend: X told me that what he really wanted in a C++ compiler was compile speed. It was the most important feature. He went on and on about it. I laughed and said that compile speed was at the bottom of his list. He looked perplexed, and asked how could I say that? I told him that he was using Cfront, a translator, with Microsoft C as the backend, a combination that compiled 4 times slower than Zortech C++, and didn't have critical (for DOS) features like near/far pointers. What he really regarded as the most important feature was being a name brand.

Given that, It does not sound a very good idea to design the language around what everyone is lobbying for on the forums. I'd much rather concentrate on specific bug reports, questions and improvement proposals. With them the designer can at least trust they show something that really matters, not just made-up excuses for some unacknowledged bias.

November 24
On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 17:14:56 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> ..
> I'd say lets not finish it and start on D3 instead.

No. D2 needs to first come to a design halt. It seems far from that at the moment.

D3 is inevitable, of course. The only question is what design decisions will 'force' that move to the next version of D?

I'd be more interested to hear in detail, about that aspect of moving D forward, rather just the call to dump D2 and create a D3.

No fluffy 'vision'.. I wanna see the details.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16