www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - The Cathedral and the Bazaar

reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ - 
and thinking about how this pertains to D.

I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the D 
language - smaller, and the bazaar much larger. It'd need Walter to 
become more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.

I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be motivated 
to read the whole article as to whether they think this might be 
applicable to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the language in a 
single day!)

Cheers

Matthew
Mar 03 2005
next sibling parent reply "Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d085be$2j8v$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ - and 
 thinking about how this pertains to D.

 I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the D 
 language - smaller, and the bazaar much larger. It'd need Walter to become 
 more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.

 I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be motivated to 
 read the whole article as to whether they think this might be applicable 
 to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the language in a single day!)

I have not read the entire article, but I'm familiar with the premise (delegated community development) and much of the subject (Linux and related tools). I'm not so sure the 'D community' is not operating in the best way wrt developing a new language. Many of the other efforts such as Perl, Oberon, Eiffel, OCaml, PHP started the same way.. Basically one man with the vision joined by others with simliar interests who contribute when they can (and often with some 3rd party funding involved - which I don't think D has. Eiffel and OCaml for example are still supported by INRIA). Plus, there is a big difference not working in D's favor - the scope of the D language seems to be a lot larger than for the inital releases of any of the above languages and D is trying to take on the 3 most popular development languages out there whereas perl for example still is 'just' a scripting language that excels in some areas, but not in a way that a true GP language like D has to. Another example is C# Mono, which is supported heavily from Novell I believe. It started out as the vision of one man and AFAIK is still primarily developed by a pretty small team of core developers. And basically they work on the runtime system and libraries, and didn't have to come up with a brand-new language spec., or for that matter, even specs. for most of the library functionality. And it's taken them 3 years to 'just' get v1.0 shipped even though they have had much more dedicated support (than D has) for that project since its inception. The way the Mono dev. effort has evolved, most of the 'community development' done outside of the core team has to do with relatively minor - in the whole scope of Mono -development of some library functionality and feedback. Much of that is practiced already by the 'D community' (library development and feedback). No doubt, there are areas that Walter keeps strict control over - just like Mr. Torvald kept strict control/did most of the development of the IP stack for Linux for a long while - but I think that primarily those areas that Walter keeps strict control over /need/ strict control, such as what goes in and stays out of the language spec. He's opened up much else.. We're free to contribute and I have not seen any resistence by Walter to include additions and changes to the library if they make even a little sense, are reasonably stable and don't break something else. In addition, he's released enough of the compiler source code to already support the development of a seperate compiler by primarily one person (David Friedman), and the entire library is open-sourced as well. The other big difference between something like Linux and D is that Linux (being based on UNIX of course) was already "spec'ed" to a large degree and also the whole design of a UNIX type op. sys. is based on disjointed utilities, which lends itself much better to delegated community development than something more tightly coupled like a programming language spec. has to be. In short, I don't get where your heading with this - how they heck could Walter follow the 'bazaar' model any better than he already has, short of releasing the DMD compiler back-end as well (which, basically, Walter has donated to this project to speed it along and doing so probably wouldn't speed the development of D anyhow). - Dave
 Cheers

 Matthew


 

Mar 03 2005
parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
"Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:d08bou$2pf8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
 news:d085be$2j8v$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/  
 - and thinking about how this pertains to D.

 I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the D 
 language - smaller, and the bazaar much larger. It'd need Walter to 
 become more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.

 I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be 
 motivated to read the whole article as to whether they think this 
 might be applicable to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the 
 language in a single day!)

I have not read the entire article, but I'm familiar with the premise (delegated community development) and much of the subject (Linux and related tools). I'm not so sure the 'D community' is not operating in the best way wrt developing a new language. Many of the other efforts such as Perl, Oberon, Eiffel, OCaml, PHP started the same way.. Basically one man with the vision joined by others with simliar interests who contribute when they can (and often with some 3rd party funding involved - which I don't think D has. Eiffel and OCaml for example are still supported by INRIA). Plus, there is a big difference not working in D's favor - the scope of the D language seems to be a lot larger than for the inital releases of any of the above languages and D is trying to take on the 3 most popular development languages out there whereas perl for example still is 'just' a scripting language that excels in some areas, but not in a way that a true GP language like D has to. Another example is C# Mono, which is supported heavily from Novell I believe. It started out as the vision of one man and AFAIK is still primarily developed by a pretty small team of core developers. And basically they work on the runtime system and libraries, and didn't have to come up with a brand-new language spec., or for that matter, even specs. for most of the library functionality. And it's taken them 3 years to 'just' get v1.0 shipped even though they have had much more dedicated support (than D has) for that project since its inception. The way the Mono dev. effort has evolved, most of the 'community development' done outside of the core team has to do with relatively minor - in the whole scope of Mono -development of some library functionality and feedback. Much of that is practiced already by the 'D community' (library development and feedback). No doubt, there are areas that Walter keeps strict control over - just like Mr. Torvald kept strict control/did most of the development of the IP stack for Linux for a long while - but I think that primarily those areas that Walter keeps strict control over /need/ strict control, such as what goes in and stays out of the language spec. He's opened up much else.. We're free to contribute and I have not seen any resistence by Walter to include additions and changes to the library if they make even a little sense, are reasonably stable and don't break something else. In addition, he's released enough of the compiler source code to already support the development of a seperate compiler by primarily one person (David Friedman), and the entire library is open-sourced as well. The other big difference between something like Linux and D is that Linux (being based on UNIX of course) was already "spec'ed" to a large degree and also the whole design of a UNIX type op. sys. is based on disjointed utilities, which lends itself much better to delegated community development than something more tightly coupled like a programming language spec. has to be. In short, I don't get where your heading with this - how they heck could Walter follow the 'bazaar' model any better than he already has, short of releasing the DMD compiler back-end as well (which, basically, Walter has donated to this project to speed it along and doing so probably wouldn't speed the development of D anyhow).

Was just throwing it out for discussion more than anything. ;)
Mar 03 2005
next sibling parent reply "Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d08dkt$2r03$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
 news:d08bou$2pf8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
 news:d085be$2j8v$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/  - 
 and thinking about how this pertains to D.

 I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the D 
 language - smaller, and the bazaar much larger. It'd need Walter to 
 become more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.

 I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be motivated 
 to read the whole article as to whether they think this might be 
 applicable to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the language in a 
 single day!)

I have not read the entire article, but I'm familiar with the premise (delegated community development) and much of the subject (Linux and related tools). I'm not so sure the 'D community' is not operating in the best way wrt developing a new language. Many of the other efforts such as Perl, Oberon, Eiffel, OCaml, PHP started the same way.. Basically one man with the vision joined by others with simliar interests who contribute when they can (and often with some 3rd party funding involved - which I don't think D has. Eiffel and OCaml for example are still supported by INRIA). Plus, there is a big difference not working in D's favor - the scope of the D language seems to be a lot larger than for the inital releases of any of the above languages and D is trying to take on the 3 most popular development languages out there whereas perl for example still is 'just' a scripting language that excels in some areas, but not in a way that a true GP language like D has to. Another example is C# Mono, which is supported heavily from Novell I believe. It started out as the vision of one man and AFAIK is still primarily developed by a pretty small team of core developers. And basically they work on the runtime system and libraries, and didn't have to come up with a brand-new language spec., or for that matter, even specs. for most of the library functionality. And it's taken them 3 years to 'just' get v1.0 shipped even though they have had much more dedicated support (than D has) for that project since its inception. The way the Mono dev. effort has evolved, most of the 'community development' done outside of the core team has to do with relatively minor - in the whole scope of Mono -development of some library functionality and feedback. Much of that is practiced already by the 'D community' (library development and feedback). No doubt, there are areas that Walter keeps strict control over - just like Mr. Torvald kept strict control/did most of the development of the IP stack for Linux for a long while - but I think that primarily those areas that Walter keeps strict control over /need/ strict control, such as what goes in and stays out of the language spec. He's opened up much else.. We're free to contribute and I have not seen any resistence by Walter to include additions and changes to the library if they make even a little sense, are reasonably stable and don't break something else. In addition, he's released enough of the compiler source code to already support the development of a seperate compiler by primarily one person (David Friedman), and the entire library is open-sourced as well. The other big difference between something like Linux and D is that Linux (being based on UNIX of course) was already "spec'ed" to a large degree and also the whole design of a UNIX type op. sys. is based on disjointed utilities, which lends itself much better to delegated community development than something more tightly coupled like a programming language spec. has to be. In short, I don't get where your heading with this - how they heck could Walter follow the 'bazaar' model any better than he already has, short of releasing the DMD compiler back-end as well (which, basically, Walter has donated to this project to speed it along and doing so probably wouldn't speed the development of D anyhow).

Was just throwing it out for discussion more than anything. ;)

Sorry - got carried away a little there.. I'll shutup now <g>
Mar 03 2005
next sibling parent clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Dave wrote:
 "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
 news:d08dkt$2r03$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
"Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:d08bou$2pf8$1 digitaldaemon.com...

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d085be$2j8v$1 digitaldaemon.com...

Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/  - 
and thinking about how this pertains to D.

I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the D 
language - smaller, and the bazaar much larger. It'd need Walter to 
become more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.

I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be motivated 
to read the whole article as to whether they think this might be 
applicable to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the language in a 
single day!)

I have not read the entire article, but I'm familiar with the premise (delegated community development) and much of the subject (Linux and related tools). I'm not so sure the 'D community' is not operating in the best way wrt developing a new language. Many of the other efforts such as Perl, Oberon, Eiffel, OCaml, PHP started the same way.. Basically one man with the vision joined by others with simliar interests who contribute when they can (and often with some 3rd party funding involved - which I don't think D has. Eiffel and OCaml for example are still supported by INRIA). Plus, there is a big difference not working in D's favor - the scope of the D language seems to be a lot larger than for the inital releases of any of the above languages and D is trying to take on the 3 most popular development languages out there whereas perl for example still is 'just' a scripting language that excels in some areas, but not in a way that a true GP language like D has to. Another example is C# Mono, which is supported heavily from Novell I believe. It started out as the vision of one man and AFAIK is still primarily developed by a pretty small team of core developers. And basically they work on the runtime system and libraries, and didn't have to come up with a brand-new language spec., or for that matter, even specs. for most of the library functionality. And it's taken them 3 years to 'just' get v1.0 shipped even though they have had much more dedicated support (than D has) for that project since its inception. The way the Mono dev. effort has evolved, most of the 'community development' done outside of the core team has to do with relatively minor - in the whole scope of Mono -development of some library functionality and feedback. Much of that is practiced already by the 'D community' (library development and feedback). No doubt, there are areas that Walter keeps strict control over - just like Mr. Torvald kept strict control/did most of the development of the IP stack for Linux for a long while - but I think that primarily those areas that Walter keeps strict control over /need/ strict control, such as what goes in and stays out of the language spec. He's opened up much else.. We're free to contribute and I have not seen any resistence by Walter to include additions and changes to the library if they make even a little sense, are reasonably stable and don't break something else. In addition, he's released enough of the compiler source code to already support the development of a seperate compiler by primarily one person (David Friedman), and the entire library is open-sourced as well. The other big difference between something like Linux and D is that Linux (being based on UNIX of course) was already "spec'ed" to a large degree and also the whole design of a UNIX type op. sys. is based on disjointed utilities, which lends itself much better to delegated community development than something more tightly coupled like a programming language spec. has to be. In short, I don't get where your heading with this - how they heck could Walter follow the 'bazaar' model any better than he already has, short of releasing the DMD compiler back-end as well (which, basically, Walter has donated to this project to speed it along and doing so probably wouldn't speed the development of D anyhow).

Was just throwing it out for discussion more than anything. ;)

Sorry - got carried away a little there.. I'll shutup now <g>

Oh, come on! (daily show). You contributed more words to the discussion than anyone else, speak freely!! ;-)
Mar 03 2005
prev sibling parent "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
"Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:d08lvm$17u$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
 news:d08dkt$2r03$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
 news:d08bou$2pf8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
 news:d085be$2j8v$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/   
 - and thinking about how this pertains to D.

 I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the 
 D language - smaller, and the bazaar much larger. It'd need Walter 
 to become more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.

 I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be 
 motivated to read the whole article as to whether they think this 
 might be applicable to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the 
 language in a single day!)

I have not read the entire article, but I'm familiar with the premise (delegated community development) and much of the subject (Linux and related tools). I'm not so sure the 'D community' is not operating in the best way wrt developing a new language. Many of the other efforts such as Perl, Oberon, Eiffel, OCaml, PHP started the same way.. Basically one man with the vision joined by others with simliar interests who contribute when they can (and often with some 3rd party funding involved - which I don't think D has. Eiffel and OCaml for example are still supported by INRIA). Plus, there is a big difference not working in D's favor - the scope of the D language seems to be a lot larger than for the inital releases of any of the above languages and D is trying to take on the 3 most popular development languages out there whereas perl for example still is 'just' a scripting language that excels in some areas, but not in a way that a true GP language like D has to. Another example is C# Mono, which is supported heavily from Novell I believe. It started out as the vision of one man and AFAIK is still primarily developed by a pretty small team of core developers. And basically they work on the runtime system and libraries, and didn't have to come up with a brand-new language spec., or for that matter, even specs. for most of the library functionality. And it's taken them 3 years to 'just' get v1.0 shipped even though they have had much more dedicated support (than D has) for that project since its inception. The way the Mono dev. effort has evolved, most of the 'community development' done outside of the core team has to do with relatively minor - in the whole scope of Mono -development of some library functionality and feedback. Much of that is practiced already by the 'D community' (library development and feedback). No doubt, there are areas that Walter keeps strict control over - just like Mr. Torvald kept strict control/did most of the development of the IP stack for Linux for a long while - but I think that primarily those areas that Walter keeps strict control over /need/ strict control, such as what goes in and stays out of the language spec. He's opened up much else.. We're free to contribute and I have not seen any resistence by Walter to include additions and changes to the library if they make even a little sense, are reasonably stable and don't break something else. In addition, he's released enough of the compiler source code to already support the development of a seperate compiler by primarily one person (David Friedman), and the entire library is open-sourced as well. The other big difference between something like Linux and D is that Linux (being based on UNIX of course) was already "spec'ed" to a large degree and also the whole design of a UNIX type op. sys. is based on disjointed utilities, which lends itself much better to delegated community development than something more tightly coupled like a programming language spec. has to be. In short, I don't get where your heading with this - how they heck could Walter follow the 'bazaar' model any better than he already has, short of releasing the DMD compiler back-end as well (which, basically, Walter has donated to this project to speed it along and doing so probably wouldn't speed the development of D anyhow).

Was just throwing it out for discussion more than anything. ;)

Sorry - got carried away a little there.. I'll shutup now <g>

Don't apologise. It was great. Very informative. (Made me glad I'd sown that particular seed.)
Mar 03 2005
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Matthew wrote:
 "Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
In short, I don't get where your heading with this - how they heck 
could Walter follow the 'bazaar' model any better than he already has, 
short of releasing the DMD compiler back-end as well (which, 
basically, Walter has donated to this project to speed it along and 
doing so probably wouldn't speed the development of D anyhow).

Was just throwing it out for discussion more than anything. ;)

We really do need a new newsgroup.
Mar 05 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Carlos Santander B." <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
Matthew wrote:
 Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ - 
 and thinking about how this pertains to D.
 
 I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the D 
 language - smaller, and the bazaar much larger. It'd need Walter to 
 become more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.
 
 I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be motivated 
 to read the whole article as to whether they think this might be 
 applicable to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the language in a 
 single day!)
 
 Cheers
 
 Matthew
 
 
 

Thanks for that. I particularly liked the part where he said about where human beings find pleasure for doing things: in an optimal challenge situation: not to easy to be boring, not too difficult to be impossible. For me, it was one of those things that you already know, but you just haven't found a way to put in words. Regarding D, I don't think Walter is too cathedral-like. I doubt DMD will ever be a bazaar, but I think it's ok. Could be better? Yes, but as of now, it works. IMHO. _______________________ Carlos Santander Bernal
Mar 03 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Some day, D will grow to a point where there are more than one (or two) 
compiler implementations. When that starts to happen, the I guess it'll 
have to be more a bazzar, from competing compiler implementations?

Matthew wrote:
 Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ - 
 and thinking about how this pertains to D.
 
 I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the D 
 language - smaller, and the bazaar much larger. It'd need Walter to 
 become more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.
 
 I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be motivated 
 to read the whole article as to whether they think this might be 
 applicable to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the language in a 
 single day!)
 
 Cheers
 
 Matthew
 
 
 

Mar 03 2005
prev sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Matthew wrote:
 Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ - 
 and thinking about how this pertains to D.
 
 I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the D 
 language - smaller, and the bazaar much larger. It'd need Walter to 
 become more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.
 
 I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be motivated 
 to read the whole article as to whether they think this might be 
 applicable to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the language in a 
 single day!)

I've been thinking for some time on a practical issue, only somewhat related to this. Currently we have the DMD compiler, and that's it. What we'd need, IMHO, is another track, with a version of the compiler that is only meant for testing the candidate ideas. To make this absolutely clear, the "toy" compiler would have to have a very distinct name. (Think about proto, test, toying, or "tasting a feature", etc.) Technically, it would be DMD, no biggie. Slapping on, and off, new features would be somewhat easier on Walter, since the whole idea is to stay pre-pre-alpha with those features. Actually, if slapping on an interesting feature would require too much work (technically) to cooperate quick-and-dirty with some official feature, then that would just be disabled for that build. Then we'd see posts by Walter: """ Hi, I just made a regexps-in-language version, but disabled wchar and dchar in it. Check it out, is this feature so cool we'd consider doing it for real? Oh, and last week I made another, that supports dscript (not to be confused with DMDscript). But it's broken, I disabled all compiler switches, but it still chokes on shebangs, just so you know. The former is called Burn-0-115-1-regex.zip and the latter Burn-0-115-1-dscript.zip. There is just the compiler, and regex.zip has a modified Phobos in the package. As normal, slap them in dmd/bin of 0.115 release. That's all to get up and trying them. Next week I'm trying the 2+ dimensional dynamic arrays, but to save time, I'll implement only 1 and 2 dimensions. If the response is good then I'll try to first figure the general solution, and then, maybe next month do a Burn version. """ The Burn :-) releases would have a non-silencable start-up text, in the spirit of: This is a feature test bed. DO NOT use this for ANYTHING. Does not come with ANY documentation. THIS VERSION HAS BUGS, is incomplete, and we know it. Do not use. For a FREE, QUALTY compiler, see www.digitalmars.com *** burn-0-115-1-regex.exe, 200503150830, build 4812 *** --------- So the Burn series DBURN???.EXE progs would be totally throwaway. And the Linux dburn??? binaries. ############ Why? What's the point? Today, Walter has to really think things through beforehand. And do them PROPERLY in the compiler. All this slows down progress.
Mar 05 2005
parent reply "Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede nospam.org> wrote in message
news:422A08F7.4020807 nospam.org...
 Matthew wrote:
 Been reading the book - the article itself is available here 
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ - and
thinking about how this pertains to D.

 I am wondering whether we might be able to make the cathedral - the D language
- smaller, and the bazaar much larger. 
 It'd need Walter to become more like Linux Torvalds and less like, erm, Walter.

 I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who might be motivated to
read the whole article as to whether they 
 think this might be applicable to D. (Imagine releasing several def's of the
language in a single day!)

I've been thinking for some time on a practical issue, only somewhat related to this. Currently we have the DMD compiler, and that's it. What we'd need, IMHO, is another track, with a version of the compiler that is only meant for testing the candidate ideas. To make this absolutely clear, the "toy" compiler would have to have a very distinct name. (Think about proto, test, toying, or "tasting a feature", etc.) Technically, it would be DMD, no biggie. Slapping on, and off, new features would be somewhat easier on Walter, since the whole idea is to stay pre-pre-alpha with those features. Actually, if slapping on an interesting feature would require too much work (technically) to cooperate quick-and-dirty with some official feature, then that would just be disabled for that build. Then we'd see posts by Walter: """ Hi, I just made a regexps-in-language version, but disabled wchar and dchar in it. Check it out, is this feature so cool we'd consider doing it for real? Oh, and last week I made another, that supports dscript (not to be confused with DMDscript). But it's broken, I disabled all compiler switches, but it still chokes on shebangs, just so you know. The former is called Burn-0-115-1-regex.zip and the latter Burn-0-115-1-dscript.zip. There is just the compiler, and regex.zip has a modified Phobos in the package. As normal, slap them in dmd/bin of 0.115 release. That's all to get up and trying them. Next week I'm trying the 2+ dimensional dynamic arrays, but to save time, I'll implement only 1 and 2 dimensions. If the response is good then I'll try to first figure the general solution, and then, maybe next month do a Burn version. """ The Burn :-) releases would have a non-silencable start-up text, in the spirit of: This is a feature test bed. DO NOT use this for ANYTHING. Does not come with ANY documentation. THIS VERSION HAS BUGS, is incomplete, and we know it. Do not use. For a FREE, QUALTY compiler, see www.digitalmars.com *** burn-0-115-1-regex.exe, 200503150830, build 4812 *** --------- So the Burn series DBURN???.EXE progs would be totally throwaway. And the Linux dburn??? binaries. ############ Why? What's the point? Today, Walter has to really think things through beforehand. And do them PROPERLY in the compiler. All this slows down progress.

Nice idea. My concern is that there'd not be time for Walter to do it. If this could be bazaar'd, maybe that'd succeed?
Mar 05 2005
parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Matthew wrote:
 "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede nospam.org> wrote in message
news:422A08F7.4020807 nospam.org...
 
Matthew wrote:


Actually, if slapping on an interesting feature would require too much work
(technically) to cooperate quick-and-dirty 
with some official feature, then that would just be disabled for that build.

Then we'd see posts by Walter:

"""
Hi, I just made a regexps-in-language version, but disabled wchar and dchar in
it. Check it out, is this feature so 
cool we'd consider doing it for real?

Oh, and last week I made another, that supports dscript (not to be confused
with DMDscript). But it's broken, I 
disabled all compiler switches, but it still chokes on shebangs, just so you
know.

The former is called Burn-0-115-1-regex.zip and the latter
Burn-0-115-1-dscript.zip. There is just the compiler, and 
regex.zip has a modified Phobos in the package. As normal, slap them in dmd/bin
of 0.115 release. That's all to get up 
and trying them.

Next week I'm trying the 2+ dimensional dynamic arrays, but to save time, I'll
implement only 1 and 2 dimensions. If 
the response is good then I'll try to first figure the general solution, and
then, maybe next month do a Burn version.
"""

The Burn :-) releases would have a non-silencable start-up text, in the spirit
of:

This is a feature test bed. DO NOT use this for ANYTHING. Does not come with
ANY documentation. THIS VERSION HAS BUGS, 
is incomplete, and we
know it. Do not use. For a FREE, QUALTY compiler, see

                 www.digitalmars.com

     *** burn-0-115-1-regex.exe, 200503150830, build 4812 ***

---------

So the Burn series DBURN???.EXE progs would be totally throwaway. And the Linux
dburn??? binaries.

############

Why? What's the point?

Today, Walter has to really think things through beforehand. And do them
PROPERLY in the compiler. All this slows down 
progress.

Nice idea. My concern is that there'd not be time for Walter to do it. If this could be bazaar'd, maybe that'd succeed?

I always somehow thought that there'd be top level resistance to Bazaar like things. But I had no reason, just felt like it. There's such a lot of things that could be split and given to interested crowds. "Somebody wanna look at the indexing issue, and then we have this foo thing, that really could use some thinking and proposals." I remember Linus quite early started using more time reading and commenting suggested kernel things, than actually writing code himself. And the rest is history.
Mar 07 2005