4 days ago

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 02:39:17 UTC, zjh wrote:

>

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 02:14:34 UTC, forkit wrote:

>

What we really need is a simpler compiler that we can trust (through formal verfication and proofs). That is how one implements @safe and @trusted ;-)

That is an ideal, not a reality.

no. it's a reality.

https://compcert.org/compcert-C.html

4 days ago

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 02:31:56 UTC, zjh wrote:

>

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 02:14:34 UTC, forkit wrote:

>

And D++...well... whoohoo....hold on tight!

C++, so complicated, but so what? Complexity is left to the compiler.
As a user, I enjoy it. That's right. Therefore,C++ has a large number of users.
D++ can also be used in this way, things are complicated, you have to provide more things. complexity is one of the essence of language. And go now also in the complex road, there is no basic template, which can abstract well, go now, has betrayed his simple concept. It feels like cheating.

Yes, I agree. Complexity is not inherently bad.

However, to paraphrase a statement from ziglang website...

You do not want to get to the point, where you find yourself debugging one's knowledge of the programming language instead of debugging the application itself.

4 days ago

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 03:04:47 UTC, forkit wrote:

>

debugging one's knowledge of the programming language instead of debugging the application itself.

You're right. I also hope D can reasonably arrange and organize time, list the problems to be solved according to the importance, and solve them one by one.
Appropriate damage, I think, is tolerable.
Freeze D2 and working on D3,It's also Ok.
The key is to organize time and manpower reasonably.
I also believe in the ability of machine verification.
Don't be afraid of change, what you are afraid of is not change.

4 days ago

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 21:59:59 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

>

I think this overstating the issue. Not-yet-enthusiatic-but-interested people may be using D, but not for anything that they will commit to long term.

You need more of those to be enthusiastic in order to get frameworks built. You cannot make them enthusiastic without addressing the issues they have.

And the issue is, how do we know what REALLY makes then enthusiastic. You have been saying we pay too little attention to not-that-specific complaining. And I strongly doubt that claim.

>

Early C++ compilers were buggy. Not a good example. Just a fun anecdote. (Even g++ was quite buggy for a very long time.)

That isn't his only anecdote on the subject. The post in full: https://forum.dlang.org/post/pmktna$1hgo$1@digitalmars.com . Also he is quoting Laeeth who is saying just the same.

Now, it's still anecdotal experience so perhaps you can show them both wrong, if you have something real credible to back that up. If.

>

You should of course polish your product!

However, it is generally negative to add a long series of "improvements" to scratch some enthusiastic individual's itch and become slightly better at something you already have covered. You gain more from extending into areas that you do not cover well.

What would happen if the most enthusiastic C# or TypeScript users were given the freedom to add new cool features? The languages would eventually fail to appeal to any other group than the most enthusiastic ones.

We're talking about attitude towards non-specific, unactionable or nearly unactionable forum ranting. It's not like only die-hards would be specific when they raise issues.

4 days ago

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 08:41:55 UTC, Dukc wrote:

>

Now, it's still anecdotal experience so perhaps you can show them both wrong, if you have something real credible to back that up. If.

They are both wrong. This is how big companies fold. IBM. SGI. SUN. Etc.

>

We're talking about attitude towards non-specific, unactionable or nearly unactionable forum ranting.

Huh? Most of the requests are very much "actionable".

3 days ago

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 08:50:19 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

>

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 08:41:55 UTC, Dukc wrote:

>

Now, it's still anecdotal experience so perhaps you can show them both wrong, if you have something real credible to back that up. If.

They are both wrong. This is how big companies fold. IBM. SGI. SUN. Etc.

The irony to see IBM on the list, given how much they move around the global computing economy, own one of the biggest Linux vendors and the second biggest JVM implementation.

3 days ago

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 10:07:22 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

>

The irony to see IBM on the list, given how much they move around the global computing economy, own one of the biggest Linux vendors and the second biggest JVM implementation.

They were forced to change their business model, because they did not give enough priority to emerging markets. We could add Apple to the list too, which was saved by a thin margin. Not to mention Commodore, Atari, 3DO etc etc… We could also start to list languages, but most here would not know them, so no point really.

3 days ago

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 10:21:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

>

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 10:07:22 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

>

The irony to see IBM on the list, given how much they move around the global computing economy, own one of the biggest Linux vendors and the second biggest JVM implementation.

They were forced to change their business model, because they did not give enough priority to emerging markets. We could add Apple to the list too, which was saved by a thin margin. Not to mention Commodore, Atari, 3DO etc etc… We could also start to list languages, but most here would not know them, so no point really.

Except Apple and IBM are around and quite relevant in this industry, including the backends that D depends on, GCC and LLVM.

While others on the list are long gone.

So you are mixing apples with oranges there.

3 days ago

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 11:55:22 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

>

Except Apple and IBM are around and quite relevant in this industry

They are around, but missed the mark for a long time because they saw no need to change when they had the opportunity. They had (or was given) stamina to survive, but that is another issue.

2 days ago
On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 08:50:19 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 08:41:55 UTC, Dukc wrote:
>> Now, it's still anecdotal experience so perhaps you can show them both wrong, if you have something real credible to back that up. If.
>
> They are both wrong. This is how big companies fold. IBM. SGI. SUN. Etc.

I'm definitely far from convinced, but at least this explains why you're so often contrarian. Yeah, if I thought that Walter's and Laeeth's business experience has been misleading them and that for some reason I knew better, I'd question the direction of the language too.

You have a lot to do if you're going to convince the rest of us you know this stuff better than Walter and Laeeth do, though.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16