www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Editable and runnable code sample on dlang.org by Damian Ziemba (nazriel)

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in the code 
example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the output!

Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel free to 
chime in with feedback!


Andrei
Jul 05 2012
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-07-05 18:26, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel free to
 chime in with feedback!


 Andrei



That is really cool.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:26:01PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the output!
 
 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel free to
 chime in with feedback!




Won't that be open to abuse? Like if somebody wrote a fork bomb and
tried to run it...

Unless the backend server has tight resource control over the code
sample executor, of course


T

-- 
Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that
leads to himself. -- Herman Hesse
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Justin Whear <justin economicmodeling.com> writes:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:51:50 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote:


 On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:26:01PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the output!
 
 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel free to
 chime in with feedback!



 
 Won't that be open to abuse? Like if somebody wrote a fork bomb and
 tried to run it...
 
 Unless the backend server has tight resource control over the code
 sample executor, of course
 
 
 T



It appears to at the very least strip out calls to shell(). I just tried 
adding:

writeln(shell("whoami"));

and just got a blank line.
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
On 5 July 2012 17:51, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:26:01PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel free to
 chime in with feedback!




 Won't that be open to abuse? Like if somebody wrote a fork bomb and
 tried to run it...

 Unless the backend server has tight resource control over the code
 sample executor, of course



If it's using the same engine as dpaste ( http://dpaste.dzfl.pl ),
then it is fairly locked down.


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?IkFuZHLDqSI=?= <nospam spambog.com> writes:
Great tool!

Just a small layout bug: On Firefox 3.6.4 (on Mac) the [your code
here] tags is misplaced after clicking the "Run" button. It then
overlaps the appearing output box.

Cheers,
André

On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 16:59:33 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 On 5 July 2012 17:51, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:26:01PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the 
 output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. 
 Feel free to
 chime in with feedback!




 Won't that be open to abuse? Like if somebody wrote a fork 
 bomb and
 tried to run it...

 Unless the backend server has tight resource control over the 
 code
 sample executor, of course



 If it's using the same engine as dpaste ( http://dpaste.dzfl.pl 
 ),
 then it is fairly locked down.
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 16:26:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the code example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you 
 see the output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel 
 free to chime in with feedback!


 Andrei



Great!
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 05-Jul-12 20:26, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel free to
 chime in with feedback!



Wonderful! It's fast and fluid, looks good.

Still I would request adding interactive console input.

Some magic with WebSockets & some server daemon on worker machines 
should do the trick. And being able to run for some time if network 
client is active.

Browsers without WebSockets can just use non-interactive input with some 
text area which contents are fed to the program.



-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jul 05 2012
parent reply "nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 17:56:34 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 On 05-Jul-12 20:26, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the 
 output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel 
 free to
 chime in with feedback!



 Wonderful! It's fast and fluid, looks good.

 Still I would request adding interactive console input.

 Some magic with WebSockets & some server daemon on worker 
 machines should do the trick. And being able to run for some 
 time if network client is active.

 Browsers without WebSockets can just use non-interactive input 
 with some text area which contents are fed to the program.



That would be really nice, but I am afraid it's currently not 
doable with current design of whole infrastructure. Although I 
will think about it, dpaste probably could benefit from this too.
Jul 05 2012
parent Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On 06-Jul-12 01:28, nazriel wrote:

 On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 17:56:34 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:

 On 05-Jul-12 20:26, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel free to
 chime in with feedback!



 Wonderful! It's fast and fluid, looks good.

 Still I would request adding interactive console input.

 Some magic with WebSockets & some server daemon on worker machines
 should do the trick. And being able to run for some time if network
 client is active.

 Browsers without WebSockets can just use non-interactive input with
 some text area which contents are fed to the program.



 That would be really nice, but I am afraid it's currently not doable
 with current design of whole infrastructure. Although I will think about
 it, dpaste probably could benefit from this too.



The truth be told I'd love to get this kind of infrastructure for a 
personal use. I've seen firsthand Claud9 IDE with node.js working on a 
very tiny device and, of course, I got jealous.
I thought: such a waste of cycles, it would be so much better if it was 
D running on it :)

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:
Nice.

Should probably remove the references to local files when 
compilation fails. Not very user friendly to see:

/home/jail/compileme369.d(14): expression expected, not '}'

Would probably suffice just to switch the filename with something 
less distracting.
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent maarten van damme <maartenvd1994 gmail.com> writes:
2012/7/5 "Andr=E9" <nospam spambog.com>:

 Great tool!

 Just a small layout bug: On Firefox 3.6.4 (on Mac) the [your code
 here] tags is misplaced after clicking the "Run" button. It then
 overlaps the appearing output box.

 Cheers,
 Andr=E9



same bug with chrome
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/5/12 12:26 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel free to
 chime in with feedback!



Updated to a much nicer shape. http://dlang.org. Thanks Damian! He'll 
work soon on enabling such compilation for all code examples in the 
Phobos pages.

Andrei
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 16:59:33 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 On 5 July 2012 17:51, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

 On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:26:01PM -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the code
 example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the 
 output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. 
 Feel free to
 chime in with feedback!




 Won't that be open to abuse? Like if somebody wrote a fork 
 bomb and
 tried to run it...

 Unless the backend server has tight resource control over the 
 code
 sample executor, of course



 If it's using the same engine as dpaste ( http://dpaste.dzfl.pl 
 ),
 then it is fairly locked down.



Yea, its using dpaste backend :~)
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 19:10:57 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote:

 Nice.

 Should probably remove the references to local files when 
 compilation fails. Not very user friendly to see:

 /home/jail/compileme369.d(14): expression expected, not '}'

 Would probably suffice just to switch the filename with 
 something less distracting.



Partially fixed.
Thanks!
Jul 05 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:26:01 -0400
Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in the
 code example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see the
 output!
 
 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel free
 to chime in with feedback!
 
 
 Andrei



It looks nice, but do we really need to be pulling in a giant JS-bomb
like JQuery on D's homepage?
Jul 05 2012
next sibling parent reply "Bernard Helyer" <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 05:45:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:26:01 -0400
 Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the
 code example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see 
 the
 output!
 
 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel 
 free
 to chime in with feedback!
 
 
 Andrei



 It looks nice, but do we really need to be pulling in a giant 
 JS-bomb
 like JQuery on D's homepage?



If you have JS enabled, you will hit JQuery on a large portion of
modern web-pages. It looks like it degrades gracefully when JS is
disabled, so I don't really see the problem.

If you want to suggest specific solutions (why are you doing X
with JQuery? Isn't doing Y sufficient?) that would be useful,
otherwise everyone is just going to filter you out as "old man
nick is complaining about JS again" :)
Jul 05 2012
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/5/2012 11:06 PM, Bernard Helyer wrote:

 otherwise everyone is just going to filter you out as "old man
 nick is complaining about JS again" :)



Young whippersnappers with your fancy cell phones and color monitors! Why, in
my 
day we had ASR-33 teletypes at 10 characters per second, and we were blessed!
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/6/2012 1:06 AM, nazriel wrote:

 I believe there are not much 56kbps modem users this days anyways! *grins*



I still have one in my equipment closet, and a 2400 one in the basement.

Funny how the only computer I didn't keep turned out to be the collector one 
worth a tidy sum.
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 05:45:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:26:01 -0400
 Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the
 code example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see 
 the
 output!
 
 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel 
 free
 to chime in with feedback!
 
 
 Andrei



 It looks nice, but do we really need to be pulling in a giant 
 JS-bomb
 like JQuery on D's homepage?



It's same question like
Why use binary bomb like D instead of using C?

Using jQuery, despite rapid development I gain one, very 
important thing. It's well tested framework and I don't need to 
care about IE glitches and use hacks to support all browsers.

I respect your state about JavaScript, but please, lets not make 
in another "X language sux" thread. D community is already full 
of this comparing crap including "D sux, Lua rox" statements :P 
Work needs to be done.

Of course I am open for suggestions and have will to replace 
jQuery with any same good and scale-able solution but more 
lightweight.

Best regards,
Damian Ziemba
Jul 06 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-07-06 10:55, Nick Sabalausky wrote:


 Yea, sorry, in my haste I worded it all very poorly. I was just
 concerned about whether using jquery (and pulling it in from a whole
 separate server) might have a lot of (or too much) bloat for the
 homepage. I haven't used jquery, but if I understand correctly it's
 considered one of the bulkier JS libs out there, hence my concern.
 That's what I was trying to say (and yes, totally missed the mark!).



jQuery is actually preferred to load from another server because it's 
such a common JS library that there's a pretty good chance that the 
client already has it cached. But I would prefer to load it from Google 
instead of jquery.com, for example:

https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.7.2/jquery.min.js

Remember, the fastest request it the one that never needs to be made :)

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 06:06:28 UTC, Bernard Helyer wrote:

 On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 05:45:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:26:01 -0400
 Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the
 code example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you 
 see the
 output!
 
 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. 
 Feel free
 to chime in with feedback!
 
 
 Andrei



 It looks nice, but do we really need to be pulling in a giant 
 JS-bomb
 like JQuery on D's homepage?



 If you have JS enabled, you will hit JQuery on a large portion 
 of
 modern web-pages. It looks like it degrades gracefully when JS 
 is
 disabled, so I don't really see the problem.



no-javascript fallback. No joke, really. I remember his 
statements about JS and I really took it to heart :)

It should give ol' good dlang.org site when running without JS.
When everything will settle down and hit stable state, we will 
also compress all js files (jQuery is already shipped compressed) 
so loading times shouldn't be an issue. I believe there are not 
much 56kbps modem users this days anyways! *grins*


 If you want to suggest specific solutions (why are you doing X
 with JQuery? Isn't doing Y sufficient?) that would be useful,
 otherwise everyone is just going to filter you out as "old man
 nick is complaining about JS again" :)



sometimes it is a must. And yes please, any suggestions are 
welcome!
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Bernard Helyer" <b.helyer gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 07:39:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/5/2012 11:06 PM, Bernard Helyer wrote:

 otherwise everyone is just going to filter you out as "old man
 nick is complaining about JS again" :)



 Young whippersnappers with your fancy cell phones and color 
 monitors! Why, in my day we had ASR-33 teletypes at 10 
 characters per second, and we were blessed!



Aieeee, it's the crypt keeper! D=

<3
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 08:07:19 UTC, Bernard Helyer wrote:

 On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 07:39:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/5/2012 11:06 PM, Bernard Helyer wrote:

 otherwise everyone is just going to filter you out as "old man
 nick is complaining about JS again" :)



 Young whippersnappers with your fancy cell phones and color 
 monitors! Why, in my day we had ASR-33 teletypes at 10 
 characters per second, and we were blessed!



 Aieeee, it's the crypt keeper! D=

 <3



Haha, I still got something like that in home alongside with good 
ol' type writter!
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling parent "Stefan Scholl" <stesch no-spoon.de> writes:
Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> wrote:

 Yea, sorry, in my haste I worded it all very poorly. I was just
 concerned about whether using jquery (and pulling it in from a 
 whole
 separate server) might have a lot of (or too much) bloat for the
 homepage. I haven't used jquery, but if I understand correctly 
 it's



This is the address: http://code.jquery.com/jquery.min.js

As many sites use this address (and the one at
ajax.googleapis.com), chances are good you already have a copy in
your browser cache.

Only problem I see: There's no version number in the address. I
guess it's always the current version. You could lose some
visitors when the current version hits 2.0 :-)

(jQuery 2.0 won't support old browsers like Internet Explorer 8.)
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "xenon325" <1 mail.net> writes:
Looks just great!

Maybe it should output compilation/execution times as well ?
Jul 06 2012
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/6/12 4:43 AM, xenon325 wrote:

 Looks just great!

 Maybe it should output compilation/execution times as well ?



I think that's a good idea. We can show the compile and run time 
separately, where the compilation speed should come shining.

Right now clicking on "run" brings a frame title "Application output". 
I'm thinking, after the program finished the title could change to e.g. 
"Application output [compile time: 228ms; run time 157ms]".

On the other hand the load on the compilation machine will influence the 
timings, so the numbers are not very relevant.


Andrei
Jul 06 2012
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/6/12 10:11 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 We can always make use of that information to compare compile times
 with Go. :)



Damian is working on integrating accurate compilation and run times.

Andrei
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 7/6/12 10:43 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:

 I humbly believe that information is useless.
 Why? - Because at any point of time the server can be congested and
 those running time figures will go high...



I decided to include those only after Damian mentioned (a) there's 
sufficient reserve power for the time being, and (b) we can easily scale 
up with need.

If we get more sophisticated about it all we might be able to report the 
time actually spent in that particular process.


Andrei
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/6/2012 5:47 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On the other hand the load on the compilation machine will influence the
 timings, so the numbers are not very relevant.



I don't think the compile time of 10 line programs is relevant. All you're 
measuring is the time it takes to load the compiler/linker/library into memory.
Jul 06 2012
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 7/7/2012 1:44 AM, nazriel wrote:

 Personally I would say no for this.
 Already enough trolls around, no need to feed them more :)



I'd be wary about providing such data just because we can, because it is not 
reflective of what people will experience using dmd on their own machines, and 
so it is misleading and will be misused.
Jul 07 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:51:59 +0200
"nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> wrote:


 On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 05:45:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:26:01 -0400
 Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:


 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the
 code example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you see 
 the
 output!
 
 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel 
 free
 to chime in with feedback!
 
 
 Andrei



 It looks nice, but do we really need to be pulling in a giant 
 JS-bomb
 like JQuery on D's homepage?



 It's same question like
 Why use binary bomb like D instead of using C?
 
 Using jQuery, despite rapid development I gain one, very 
 important thing. It's well tested framework and I don't need to 
 care about IE glitches and use hacks to support all browsers.
 
 I respect your state about JavaScript, but please, lets not make 
 in another "X language sux" thread. D community is already full 
 of this comparing crap including "D sux, Lua rox" statements :P 
 Work needs to be done.
 
 Of course I am open for suggestions and have will to replace 
 jQuery with any same good and scale-able solution but more 
 lightweight.
 
 Best regards,
 Damian Ziemba



Yea, sorry, in my haste I worded it all very poorly. I was just
concerned about whether using jquery (and pulling it in from a whole
separate server) might have a lot of (or too much) bloat for the
homepage. I haven't used jquery, but if I understand correctly it's
considered one of the bulkier JS libs out there, hence my concern.
That's what I was trying to say (and yes, totally missed the mark!).
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 12:47:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 7/6/12 4:43 AM, xenon325 wrote:

 Looks just great!

 Maybe it should output compilation/execution times as well ?



 I think that's a good idea. We can show the compile and run 
 time separately, where the compilation speed should come 
 shining.

 Right now clicking on "run" brings a frame title "Application 
 output". I'm thinking, after the program finished the title 
 could change to e.g. "Application output [compile time: 228ms; 
 run time 157ms]".

 On the other hand the load on the compilation machine will 
 influence the timings, so the numbers are not very relevant.


 Andrei



Well, they are always helpful when comparing compile times with
Go. :)


--
Paulo
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 12:47:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 7/6/12 4:43 AM, xenon325 wrote:

 Looks just great!

 Maybe it should output compilation/execution times as well ?



 I think that's a good idea. We can show the compile and run 
 time separately, where the compilation speed should come 
 shining.

 Right now clicking on "run" brings a frame title "Application 
 output". I'm thinking, after the program finished the title 
 could change to e.g. "Application output [compile time: 228ms; 
 run time 157ms]".

 On the other hand the load on the compilation machine will 
 influence the timings, so the numbers are not very relevant.


 Andrei



Not sure if this will be a double post.

We can always make use of that information to compare compile 
times
with Go. :)

--
Paulo
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Dejan Lekic" <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 12:47:59 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 7/6/12 4:43 AM, xenon325 wrote:

 Looks just great!

 Maybe it should output compilation/execution times as well ?



 I think that's a good idea. We can show the compile and run 
 time separately, where the compilation speed should come 
 shining.

 Right now clicking on "run" brings a frame title "Application 
 output". I'm thinking, after the program finished the title 
 could change to e.g. "Application output [compile time: 228ms; 
 run time 157ms]".

 On the other hand the load on the compilation machine will 
 influence the timings, so the numbers are not very relevant.


 Andrei



I humbly believe that information is useless.
Why? - Because at any point of time the server can be congested 
and those running time figures will go high...
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 16:26:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel 
 free to chime in with feedback!



When on dlang.org/ and pressing Back and then Forward again, the 
contents of the input area disappear on Chrome 20.0.1132.47 (OS 
X): http://imgur.com/TgfnT

David
Jul 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 06:23:03 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 16:26:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel 
 free to chime in with feedback!



 When on dlang.org/ and pressing Back and then Forward again, 
 the contents of the input area disappear on Chrome 20.0.1132.47 
 (OS X): http://imgur.com/TgfnT



Nice catch David,
Unfortunately I can't do much about it as it is Webkit bug, so 
Chromium and Safari suffers from this.

Doesn't happen on Firefox, Opera (and probably IE - can't test 
right now).
It's bug described here: 
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=64467 and 
here: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90259

Looks like fix for this has been applied 8 days ago: 
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/121552

I will try to find workaround tho.

Thanks for report David.

Best regards,
Damian Ziemba
Jul 07 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 19:45:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 7/6/2012 5:47 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On the other hand the load on the compilation machine will 
 influence the
 timings, so the numbers are not very relevant.



 I don't think the compile time of 10 line programs is relevant. 
 All you're measuring is the time it takes to load the 
 compiler/linker/library into memory.



power to handle 100 requests same time but, you maybe right, 
every execution of produced binary has applied it's resources 
limits.

It has 10mb stack size, 30mb virtual memory and 5secs of CPU 
clock.
Compilation times maybe accurate but binary run-time may not be.

Adding this feature is 10seconds work as returned JSON already 
includes timers so no need to hurry with this, we should rethink 
this.

Personally I would say no for this.
Already enough trolls around, no need to feed them more :)
Jul 07 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 16:26:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the code example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you 
 see the output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel 
 free to chime in with feedback!


 Andrei



Hi,

just noticed than this is broken in Firefox 13.

--
Paulo
Jul 09 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "nazriel" <nazriel6969 gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 9 July 2012 at 11:35:59 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

 On Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 16:26:02 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
 wrote:

 Check this out: on http://dlang.org you can actually click in 
 the code example and edit it, then click "Run" and pronto, you 
 see the output!

 Damian is actively working on the UI as I'm writing this. Feel 
 free to chime in with feedback!


 Andrei



 Hi,

 just noticed than this is broken in Firefox 13.

 --
 Paulo



Can you collaborate? I have FF 13 and it works fine. We had small 
glitch with updating website itself, although it should work fine 
from now.

David (klickverbot), are examples working for you now? (Back - 
Forward transition)?

Thanks
Damian Ziemba
Jul 09 2012
prev sibling parent "David Nadlinger" <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On Monday, 9 July 2012 at 16:58:26 UTC, nazriel wrote:

 David (klickverbot), are examples working for you now? (Back - 
 Forward transition)?



Yes, they are indeed.

Keep up the good work,
David
Jul 09 2012