Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

1) Why so long?

Because "D" is un-googlable, there needs to be a reasonably unique, 
recognizable phrase for it. Nothing works as well as "d programming 
language". There's no ambiguity about what it's about. Besides, most 
people will get to the web site via a click, rather than typing it in.


2) Why the embedded '-'?

In my experiments, google doesn't separate dprogramminglanguage into 3 
words. But it will if there are embedded '-'s.


3) Why 'org' instead of 'com'?

Because the D language itself is not a company, nor is it a proprietary 
language. Hence, 'org' is the most appropriate for it.


4) When will it go live?

It'll take a couple days at least.

Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:

In article <e3osei$g90$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

In my opinion, typeability is as or more important than googleability.
d-programming-language.org is difficult to type (both because of the length and
because of the dashes)

Plus, google parses -'s as a word separator, so "d-programming-language" would
match "d-programming langugae", "d programming-language", "d programming
language", "D) Programming languages", etc, and more importantly,
d-programming-language (no quotes) would match , "a b c d e f g ... programming
is the act of writing data in a language suitable for a computer to interpret"

- Gregor Richards

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Gregor Richards wrote:
 In article <e3osei$g90$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

 
 In my opinion, typeability is as or more important than googleability.
 d-programming-language.org is difficult to type (both because of the length and
 because of the dashes)

Which is why I agonized over this for quite a while. But the usage 
statistics from the web log show that the overwhelming amount of traffic 
comes to the digitalmars site via clicking on links, usually from 
google. Heck, even I click to get to digitalmars.com rather than typing 
it in!


 Plus, google parses -'s as a word separator, so "d-programming-language" would
 match "d-programming langugae", "d programming-language", "d programming
 language", "D) Programming languages", etc,

Yes, and most importantly, it will match "d programming language" which 
is what we should be building brand around, and that match will place 
high (if not first) in the search results for that phrase.

 and more importantly,
 d-programming-language (no quotes) would match , "a b c d e f g ... programming
 is the act of writing data in a language suitable for a computer to interpret"

It'd probably be down in the results for that.

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Gregor Richards wrote:
 

[snip]
 
 and more importantly,
 d-programming-language (no quotes) would match , "a b c d e f g ... 
 programming
 is the act of writing data in a language suitable for a computer to 
 interpret"

 
 
 It'd probably be down in the results for that.
 

Maybe msn search would put that on the top :lol:

"Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> writes:

On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:49:09 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:

 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

 1) Why so long?

 Because "D" is un-googlable, there needs to be a reasonably unique,  
 recognizable phrase for it. Nothing works as well as "d programming  
 language". There's no ambiguity about what it's about. Besides, most  
 people will get to the web site via a click, rather than typing it in.

I got a cramp typing it, and aggrivated trying to tell my friend.  </joke>

 2) Why the embedded '-'?

 In my experiments, google doesn't separate dprogramminglanguage into 3  
 words. But it will if there are embedded '-'s.

In my experiments, Google DOES separate DOMAINS.  </fact>

 3) Why 'org' instead of 'com'?

 Because the D language itself is not a company, nor is it a proprietary  
 language. Hence, 'org' is the most appropriate for it.

I guess that's fine.

 4) When will it go live?

 It'll take a couple days at least.

I can't wait, or, I can...


Why not get  
d--the-programming-language-of-the-future-with-cool-features.organization  
instead? No chance of misunderstanding.  </sarcasm>

So, as you can gather, I think it's a terrible, terrible choice.

At the very least you could have 2 domains (or more); this one could be  
advertised, and the other could be the brief and pretty one for practical  
use.

- Chris

"Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> writes:

Sorry about that unfriendly post. I'll try to explain better.

Google and yahoo search both treat domains with '-' less because they're  
most likely spam domains. '-' does pretty much no good, and is harder to  
tell people the site vocally due to having to explain the dashes, and  
makes it overall sound less appealing.
Notice that when you google for `d programming` it bolds the whole,  
non-'.com' part of dprogramming.com because it does do substring searches  
on domains.

The other issue is that it's just too long, even without the dashes. I  
wouldn't be surprised if search engines give lower priority to domains  
that long as well.

digitalmars.com and dprogramming.com are fairly long, but they don't  
exactly go over that "too far" limit like d-programming-language.org does.

My suggestion is to get dlanguage.org, and also get dlanguage.com to  
redirect to dlanguage.org.
There are different reasons for also getting the .com version: many people  
try .com first; domain squatters watch for .org registrations and hurry up  
and grab the .com counterparts for spam sometimes; and .com hasn't  
completely meant 'commercial' for years now, some users even don't know it  
or assume it means 'computer'.

- Chris

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Chris Miller wrote:
 Sorry about that unfriendly post. I'll try to explain better.
 
 Google and yahoo search both treat domains with '-' less because they're 
 most likely spam domains. '-' does pretty much no good, and is harder to 
 tell people the site vocally due to having to explain the dashes, and 
 makes it overall sound less appealing.
 Notice that when you google for `d programming` it bolds the whole, 
 non-'.com' part of dprogramming.com because it does do substring 
 searches on domains.
 
 The other issue is that it's just too long, even without the dashes. I 
 wouldn't be surprised if search engines give lower priority to domains 
 that long as well.
 
 digitalmars.com and dprogramming.com are fairly long, but they don't 
 exactly go over that "too far" limit like d-programming-language.org does.
 
 My suggestion is to get dlanguage.org, and also get dlanguage.com to 
 redirect to dlanguage.org.
 There are different reasons for also getting the .com version: many 
 people try .com first; domain squatters watch for .org registrations and 
 hurry up and grab the .com counterparts for spam sometimes; and .com 
 hasn't completely meant 'commercial' for years now, some users even 
 don't know it or assume it means 'computer'.
 
 - Chris


I agree with Chris and Gregor that the site name is awfully unwieldy. 
dlanguage.org (and com) would be a great choice... Yet I /do/ think the 
"org" post-fix is to be preferred; and I do think it makes a big 
difference to people visiting the site, although I agree that snapping 
up the same *.com address would be a good idea as well.  Whenever I 
visit *.com sites, I always assume a proprietary nature, even though it 
probably qualifies as a knee-jerk reaction.

Nevertheless, I applaud Walter on this step.  I am very happy to see 
he's working towards publicizing D in this way.  It's an important move, 
I think.

-JJR

Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:

Chris Miller wrote:
 Sorry about that unfriendly post. I'll try to explain better.
 
 Google and yahoo search both treat domains with '-' less because they're 
 most likely spam domains. '-' does pretty much no good, and is harder to 
 tell people the site vocally due to having to explain the dashes, and 
 makes it overall sound less appealing.
 Notice that when you google for `d programming` it bolds the whole, 
 non-'.com' part of dprogramming.com because it does do substring 
 searches on domains.
 
 The other issue is that it's just too long, even without the dashes. I 
 wouldn't be surprised if search engines give lower priority to domains 
 that long as well.
 
 digitalmars.com and dprogramming.com are fairly long, but they don't 
 exactly go over that "too far" limit like d-programming-language.org does.
 
 My suggestion is to get dlanguage.org, and also get dlanguage.com to 
 redirect to dlanguage.org.
 There are different reasons for also getting the .com version: many 
 people try .com first; domain squatters watch for .org registrations and 
 hurry up and grab the .com counterparts for spam sometimes; and .com 
 hasn't completely meant 'commercial' for years now, some users even 
 don't know it or assume it means 'computer'.
 
 - Chris

I am of the same mind with the previous posters. I am extremely excited 
however with the direction you are going, Walter. Perhaps if the domain 
hasn't been registered yet, we can discuss this further. If not, I'm 
still very excited with this decision.

-- 
Kyle Furlong // Physics Undergrad, UCSB

"D is going wherever the D community wants it to go." - Walter Bright

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Chris Miller wrote:
 At the very least you could have 2 domains (or more); this one could be 
 advertised, and the other could be the brief and pretty one for 
 practical use.

There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can find.

=?UTF-8?B?QW5kZXJzIEYgQmrDtnJrbHVuZA==?= <afb algonet.se> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:

 At the very least you could have 2 domains (or more); this one could 
 be advertised, and the other could be the brief and pretty one for 
 practical use.

 
 There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can find.

You could do something like "sf.net" ? (redirects to sourceforge.net)

--anders

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Chris Miller wrote:
 At the very least you could have 2 domains (or more); this one could 
 be advertised, and the other could be the brief and pretty one for 
 practical use.

 
 There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can find.


This one will have to do.  I'm sure we can get used to it. :D

-JJR

=?UTF-8?B?QW5kZXJzIEYgQmrDtnJrbHVuZA==?= <afb algonet.se> writes:

John Reimer wrote:

 This one will have to do.  I'm sure we can get used to it. :D

Yes, I for one am more interested in what the new *content* will be,
even if a new design and domain name (d-p-l.org, gnu-d.org) is good.

As it is now, we have *lots* of domains. Like e.g. http://opend.org ?
Or http://sf.net/projects/brightd ? Or http://sf.net/projects/dgcc ?


I'll contribute some docs, if it's portable and under a open license...
(when I have some more time that is, like during rainy summer days etc)

But I will probably be using the GNU tools and the oldskool methods,
which is mostly due to "better the devil you know" and laziness. :-)

--anders

lightoze <lightoze_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e3pb46$14ff$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
Chris Miller wrote:
 At the very least you could have 2 domains (or more); this one could be 
 advertised, and the other could be the brief and pretty one for 
 practical use.

There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can find.

What about dlang.org?

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

lightoze wrote:
 There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can find.

 
 What about dlang.org?

Not pretty :-(

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:

 There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can 
 find.

 What about dlang.org?

 
 Not pretty :-(

I think "d-p-l.org" is available for a shortcut, if a such is required ?
(i.e. not as the real domain, but just redirecting to the longer one...)

Came to think of it since http://www.k-p-l.org/ is an alias for the
http://www.kidsprogramminglanguage.com/, some .NET and BASIC lingo.

--anders

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Anders F Björklund wrote:
<snip>
 Came to think of it since http://www.k-p-l.org/ is an alias for the
 http://www.kidsprogramminglanguage.com/, some .NET and BASIC lingo.

That's about the second place where I've seen the Stars and Stripes 
being labelled as the English flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Programming_Language

"Jonah Stagner got the idea for KPL as he started to teach his own 
children how to program"

If he's got children of his own, he's probably not a kid himself.  So I 
wonder who the kid is who owns that language....

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

F <F_member pathlink.com> writes:

www.dprog.org ?

In article <e3qhc7$31b5$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
lightoze wrote:
 There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can find.

 
 What about dlang.org?

Not pretty :-(

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:

lightoze wrote:
 In article <e3pb46$14ff$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
 Chris Miller wrote:
 At the very least you could have 2 domains (or more); this one could be 
 advertised, and the other could be the brief and pretty one for 
 practical use.

 There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can find.

 
 What about dlang.org?
 

I like it, either dlang.org or d-lang.org (there could be better options 
tough, that haven't occurred yet)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

xs0 <xs0 xs0.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Chris Miller wrote:
 At the very least you could have 2 domains (or more); this one could 
 be advertised, and the other could be the brief and pretty one for 
 practical use.

 
 There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can find.

Well, I still think d-lang.org would be a much better choice (exactly 
because it's short), and "-lang" is used in at least 5 other languages, 
so it's not exactly an odd abbreviation to choose:

http://www.ruby-lang.org/
http://www.squirrel-lang.org/
http://www.onion-lang.org/
http://www.s-lang.org/
http://q-lang.sf.net/

I think you should at least buy d-lang.* and redirect them to 
d-programming-language.org . I also wish you'd do the opposite :)

Finally, I'd say the domain name has minuscule (if any) effect on search 
engine rankings - it's far too easy to buy a domain with the words you 
want to own..


xs0

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

xs0 wrote:
 Well, I still think d-lang.org would be a much better choice (exactly 
 because it's short), and "-lang" is used in at least 5 other languages, 
 so it's not exactly an odd abbreviation to choose:
 
 http://www.ruby-lang.org/
 http://www.squirrel-lang.org/
 http://www.onion-lang.org/
 http://www.s-lang.org/
 http://q-lang.sf.net/

Of those, the ruby-lang is a significant data point, the others not. 
There is no java-lang, c-lang, csharp-lang, perl-lang, python-lang, 
etc., so I don't think it's a natural.

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:

I took a few minutes and found a few - dlanguage, d-language, d-lang, 
d-programming, etc.

Anyway, I usually think domains with more than 12 characters in them are 
spam houses.... but that's just my initial impression - because that's 
the overwhelming majority.

When I worked on forum software, we had the domain 
www.simplemachines.org (being an organization named Simple Machines.) 
At first, searching for "Simple Machines" put us nowhere - all that came 
up were sites about levers and such.  Luckily, it's now pretty high up 
in the results.

Google really doesn't care for the domain name, because some people 
might register "sony-of-america.com" and that won't be the correct 
domain for "sony of america".

Page Rank and such are really what matter.  That comes with time, links, 
etc.  And for that, the domain could be "twoplustwoisfive.net".  It 
wouldn't matter.

Anyway, it won't really matter much I suppose if the domain name is 
long.  Most people these days use Google, autocomplete, or their 
bookmarks, as you said.

-[Unknown]


 Chris Miller wrote:
 At the very least you could have 2 domains (or more); this one could 
 be advertised, and the other could be the brief and pretty one for 
 practical use.

 
 There are no brief, pretty, available, and relevant names that I can find.

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.
 
 1) Why so long?
 
 Because "D" is un-googlable, there needs to be a reasonably unique, 
 recognizable phrase for it. Nothing works as well as "d programming 
 language". There's no ambiguity about what it's about. Besides, most 
 people will get to the web site via a click, rather than typing it in.
 
 
 2) Why the embedded '-'?
 
 In my experiments, google doesn't separate dprogramminglanguage into 3 
 words. But it will if there are embedded '-'s.
 
 
 3) Why 'org' instead of 'com'?
 
 Because the D language itself is not a company, nor is it a proprietary 
 language. Hence, 'org' is the most appropriate for it.
 
 
 4) When will it go live?
 
 It'll take a couple days at least.

This is a great step forward, I'm looking forward for the site to go live!

But, I have to agree with the others who posted before me. The domain 
name choice is not very good.
I would prefer something along the lines of dlangauge.org or dlang.org

Tydr Schnubbis <fake address.dude> writes:

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 But, I have to agree with the others who posted before me. The domain 
 name choice is not very good.
 I would prefer something along the lines of dlangauge.org or dlang.org
 

dlanguage.org and dlanguage.com are both available, according to pir.org 
and internic.net.  dlang.org is available, but not dlang.com.

dlanguage.org is not too long, and easy to explain and remember.

Dejan Lekic <dejan nu6.org> writes:

Mr. Bright i completely understand your reasons for this. Unfortunately 
today, in the era of big search engine dominance "serach engine 
visibility" is very important, and increases popularity, without a doubt.

If you need any help with site, please do not hesitate to call for it. :)

Kind regards and keep with excellent work.

Dejan Lekic

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.
 
 1) Why so long?
 
 Because "D" is un-googlable, there needs to be a reasonably unique, 
 recognizable phrase for it. Nothing works as well as "d programming 
 language". There's no ambiguity about what it's about. Besides, most 
 people will get to the web site via a click, rather than typing it in.
 
 
 2) Why the embedded '-'?
 
 In my experiments, google doesn't separate dprogramminglanguage into 3 
 words. But it will if there are embedded '-'s.
 
 
 3) Why 'org' instead of 'com'?
 
 Because the D language itself is not a company, nor is it a proprietary 
 language. Hence, 'org' is the most appropriate for it.
 
 
 4) When will it go live?
 
 It'll take a couple days at least.


Ahh .. Digital Daemon? BSD?
What's with that?

http://d-programming-language.org/
http://www.digitaldaemon.com/

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

Hasan Aljudy wrote:
 
 Ahh .. Digital Daemon? BSD?
 What's with that?
 
 http://d-programming-language.org/
 http://www.digitaldaemon.com/


I think that's the host company for his website? :)

-JJR

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:

John Reimer wrote:

 Ahh .. Digital Daemon? BSD?
 What's with that?


 I think that's the host company for his website? :)

Seems that way:
http://www.digitaldaemon.com/ISP/Hosted_Domains.html

--anders

Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:

Anders F Björklund wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 
 Ahh .. Digital Daemon? BSD?
 What's with that?


 
 I think that's the host company for his website? :)

 
 Seems that way:
 http://www.digitaldaemon.com/ISP/Hosted_Domains.html
 
 --anders

O M G. He runs it out of his HOUSE? An above ground T1? Anyone else want 
an actual data center?

-- 
Kyle Furlong // Physics Undergrad, UCSB

"D is going wherever the D community wants it to go." - Walter Bright

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Anders F Björklund wrote:

 I think that's the host company for his website? :)

 Seems that way:
 http://www.digitaldaemon.com/ISP/Hosted_Domains.html

 O M G. He runs it out of his HOUSE? An above ground T1? Anyone else want 
 an actual data center?

Jan's been hosting digitalmars.com for over 6 years now. He's done an 
incredible job. The uptime track record is better than most data centers 
(he kept it up even during the blackouts). It's survived slashdottings 
and diggs with aplomb. And best of all, Jan's service and attention to 
detail has been without peer.

I wouldn't even dream of changing hosting services.

Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Anders F Björklund wrote:

 
 I think that's the host company for his website? :)

 Seems that way:
 http://www.digitaldaemon.com/ISP/Hosted_Domains.html

 O M G. He runs it out of his HOUSE? An above ground T1? Anyone else 
 want an actual data center?

 
 Jan's been hosting digitalmars.com for over 6 years now. He's done an 
 incredible job. The uptime track record is better than most data centers 
 (he kept it up even during the blackouts). It's survived slashdottings 
 and diggs with aplomb. And best of all, Jan's service and attention to 
 detail has been without peer.
 
 I wouldn't even dream of changing hosting services.

Well, good for him I guess. It just seems less safe to have your cable 
hung near lots of trees in a place that has storms.

-- 
Kyle Furlong // Physics Undergrad, UCSB

"D is going wherever the D community wants it to go." - Walter Bright

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.
 

Cool.

Is it now finally possible to _officially_ list proposed language
features before they get implemented in DMD? I have many times thought
that we're not able to see the "big picture" here, because D only
evolves one step at a time.

One big question would be built-in arrays. What would the syntax of
initializing dynamic arrays look like? What about multidimensional
arrays or new DDoc macros/features in the future?

-- 
Jari-Matti

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

 Cool.
 
 Is it now finally possible to _officially_ list proposed language
 features before they get implemented in DMD?

<snip>

Why not use Bugzilla for this?

A lot of projects that use Bugzilla welcome feature requests through it, 
including all Mozilla projects.  It's why there's an 'enhancement' 
severity level.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

 Cool.

 Is it now finally possible to _officially_ list proposed language
 features before they get implemented in DMD?

 <snip>
 
 Why not use Bugzilla for this?
 
 A lot of projects that use Bugzilla welcome feature requests through it, 
 including all Mozilla projects.  It's why there's an 'enhancement' 
 severity level.

Walter said that it was an inappropriate forum for discussions about 
language features, and I agree with that (language features almost 
always require far more discussion than a browser feature). But I think 
it makes a lot of sense to put enhancements in Bugzilla once Walter has 
given an indication that he'll probably implement it. (I just did that 
for what I think is the only proposal I've made that falls into that 
category).
95% of proposals don't get any response from Walter, so I don't think 
they belong in Bugzilla. It might make sense to revive that Wiki page 
for them, though.

Other enhancements which seem to have been approved:
* array literals (for DMD 2.0).
* array expressions (for DMD 2.0).
* new 'auto' syntax for allocating classes on the stack.
* coroutines (for DMD 2.0)
* combining function pointers and delegates (for DMD 2.0).

Can anyone think of any more?

It might make sense to create a DMD2.0 product in Bugzilla to put those 
into.

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:

<snip>
 Why not use Bugzilla for this?

 A lot of projects that use Bugzilla welcome feature requests through 
 it, including all Mozilla projects.  It's why there's an 'enhancement' 
 severity level.

 
 Walter said that it was an inappropriate forum for discussions about 
 language features, and I agree with that (language features almost 
 always require far more discussion than a browser feature). But I think 
 it makes a lot of sense to put enhancements in Bugzilla once Walter has 
 given an indication that he'll probably implement it. (I just did that 
 for what I think is the only proposal I've made that falls into that 
 category).

<snip>

The whole point of Bugzilla is to be able to track the status of bugs 
and feature requests.  If the only acceptable status for feature 
requests is "accepted", then this defeats the point.

My point is that we should be able to track the status of _all_ feature 
requests, whether Walter has accepted them or not.

The simplest answer (to J-M's question at least) is to finally confer 
official status on

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 <snip>
 Why not use Bugzilla for this?

 A lot of projects that use Bugzilla welcome feature requests through
 it, including all Mozilla projects.  It's why there's an
 'enhancement' severity level.

 Walter said that it was an inappropriate forum for discussions about
 language features, and I agree with that (language features almost
 always require far more discussion than a browser feature). But I
 think it makes a lot of sense to put enhancements in Bugzilla once
 Walter has given an indication that he'll probably implement it. (I
 just did that for what I think is the only proposal I've made that
 falls into that category).

 <snip>
 
 The whole point of Bugzilla is to be able to track the status of bugs
 and feature requests.  If the only acceptable status for feature
 requests is "accepted", then this defeats the point.
 
 My point is that we should be able to track the status of _all_ feature
 requests, whether Walter has accepted them or not.
 
 The simplest answer (to J-M's question at least) is to finally confer
 official status on
 
 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList

Yes, that would help a lot. A logical next step would be to create a
short official syntax & description page for all approved features. Then
we (well, at least the most talented ones - not me :) could help develop
these things so that Walter could concentrate on the more important
matters. At least coding the proposed library code is relatively trivial
compared to the advanced compiler techniques and partly done in some 3rd
party projects.

-- 
Jari-Matti

jcc7 <jcc7_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e3qf2b$2s5m$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
Don Clugston wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:

<snip>
 Why not use Bugzilla for this?

 A lot of projects that use Bugzilla welcome feature requests through 
 it, including all Mozilla projects.  It's why there's an 'enhancement' 
 severity level.

 
 Walter said that it was an inappropriate forum for discussions about 
 language features, and I agree with that (language features almost 
 always require far more discussion than a browser feature). But I think 
 it makes a lot of sense to put enhancements in Bugzilla once Walter has 
 given an indication that he'll probably implement it. (I just did that 
 for what I think is the only proposal I've made that falls into that 
 category).

<snip>

The whole point of Bugzilla is to be able to track the status of bugs 
and feature requests.  If the only acceptable status for feature 
requests is "accepted", then this defeats the point.

My point is that we should be able to track the status of _all_ feature 
requests, whether Walter has accepted them or not.

Walter did ask us not to put feature requests into Bugzilla:
"Please don't add feature requests to the bug list."
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/6933

And it took us long enough to wear him down on the benefits of using Bugzilla
for bugs, so I think we should be grateful for what we have in that department.

The simplest answer (to J-M's question at least) is to finally confer 
official status on

http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList

I think wiki pages can do a good job for tracking and discussing feature
requests (whether they're declared "official" or not).

jcc7

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

jcc7 wrote:
 In article <e3qf2b$2s5m$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

<snip>
 The simplest answer (to J-M's question at least) is to finally confer 
 official status on

 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList

 
 I think wiki pages can do a good job for tracking and discussing feature
 requests (whether they're declared "official" or not).

Next question: Would declaring it official persuade Walter to pay more 
regular attention to it?

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 jcc7 wrote:
 In article <e3qf2b$2s5m$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

 <snip>
 The simplest answer (to J-M's question at least) is to finally confer 
 official status on

 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList

 I think wiki pages can do a good job for tracking and discussing feature
 requests (whether they're declared "official" or not).

 
 Next question: Would declaring it official persuade Walter to pay more 
 regular attention to it?

Working on new features is not the best thing to do right now. The best 
thing is to work on mowing the bug list, and adding things like better 
debugger support, better documentation, etc.

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:

<snip>
 Next question: Would declaring it official persuade Walter to pay more 
 regular attention to it?

 
 Working on new features is not the best thing to do right now. The best 
 thing is to work on mowing the bug list, and adding things like better 
 debugger support, better documentation, etc.

Working on new features is one thing.  Commenting on whether they're 
good ideas/likely to be in D in the foreseeable future is quite another.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 <snip>
 Next question: Would declaring it official persuade Walter to pay 
 more regular attention to it?

 Working on new features is not the best thing to do right now. The 
 best thing is to work on mowing the bug list, and adding things like 
 better debugger support, better documentation, etc.

 
 Working on new features is one thing.  Commenting on whether they're 
 good ideas/likely to be in D in the foreseeable future is quite another.

Making such comments is not something I should do lightly.

Stewart Gordon <Stewart_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e3t9jh$1fdm$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
<snip>
 Working on new features is one thing.  Commenting on whether 
 they're good ideas/likely to be in D in the foreseeable future is 
 quite another.

 
 Making such comments is not something I should do lightly.

Indeed.  But in the time you've had to implement new D features, 
several of which appear to be your own ideas, you ought to have had 
time for some more constructive criticism of other people's ideas, 
mine included.

Stewart.

jcc7 <jcc7_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e3qhjf$in$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
jcc7 wrote:
 In article <e3qf2b$2s5m$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

<snip>
 The simplest answer (to J-M's question at least) is to finally confer 
 official status on

 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList

 
 I think wiki pages can do a good job for tracking and discussing feature
 requests (whether they're declared "official" or not).

Next question: Would declaring it official persuade Walter to pay more 
regular attention to it?

Has he ever looked at that wiki page anyway? I think Walter is too busy reading
all of the newsgroup posts and e-mails that I'm sure he gets to spend much time
looking at the various wiki pages. ;)

jcc7

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 <snip>
 Why not use Bugzilla for this?

 A lot of projects that use Bugzilla welcome feature requests through 
 it, including all Mozilla projects.  It's why there's an 
 'enhancement' severity level.

 Walter said that it was an inappropriate forum for discussions about 
 language features, and I agree with that (language features almost 
 always require far more discussion than a browser feature). But I 
 think it makes a lot of sense to put enhancements in Bugzilla once 
 Walter has given an indication that he'll probably implement it. (I 
 just did that for what I think is the only proposal I've made that 
 falls into that category).

 <snip>
 
 The whole point of Bugzilla is to be able to track the status of bugs 
 and feature requests.  If the only acceptable status for feature 
 requests is "accepted", then this defeats the point.
 
 My point is that we should be able to track the status of _all_ feature 
 requests, whether Walter has accepted them or not.
 
 The simplest answer (to J-M's question at least) is to finally confer 
 official status on
 

Official status? Huh?, who would grant that, and what would than mean??

 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FeatureRequestList
 
 Stewart.
 


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

 Cool.

 Is it now finally possible to _officially_ list proposed language
 features before they get implemented in DMD?

 <snip>

 Why not use Bugzilla for this?

 A lot of projects that use Bugzilla welcome feature requests through
 it, including all Mozilla projects.  It's why there's an 'enhancement'
 severity level.

 
 Walter said that it was an inappropriate forum for discussions about
 language features, and I agree with that (language features almost
 always require far more discussion than a browser feature). But I think
 it makes a lot of sense to put enhancements in Bugzilla once Walter has
 given an indication that he'll probably implement it. (I just did that
 for what I think is the only proposal I've made that falls into that
 category).
 95% of proposals don't get any response from Walter, so I don't think
 they belong in Bugzilla. It might make sense to revive that Wiki page
 for them, though.
 
 Other enhancements which seem to have been approved:
 * array literals (for DMD 2.0).
 * array expressions (for DMD 2.0).
 * new 'auto' syntax for allocating classes on the stack.
 * coroutines (for DMD 2.0)
 * combining function pointers and delegates (for DMD 2.0).
 
 Can anyone think of any more?
 
 It might make sense to create a DMD2.0 product in Bugzilla to put those
 into.

What I meant was that why doesn't Walter want to document approved
future language features before implementing them. It would be a lot
easier for other frontend writers to create patches / own
implementations if there was some documentary in the first place. Walter
could even tag them with something like "[not implemented yet, will be
implemented in DMD 1.5 or 2.0]". The Future-link in digitalmars-site is
badly outdated and inadequate. The bugzilla isn't good for describing
the syntax or features in a verbose manner.

I know there are proposals in bugzilla and in the newsgroups. The
problem is that these are not official in any way. We don't know, what
would the final implementation be. I bet it would accelerate the
development of D as a language if there were some centralized guidelines
somewhere. It would also eliminate some missteps like builtin regexps or
bit arrays if we could see them syntactically before they are in the
"production" version. I don't know how Walter sees this, but IMHO
writing few pages of text in a natural language is a lot less time
consuming than writing them as a code to the compiler. And you have to
write those damn docs anyway sooner or later.

-- 
Jari-Matti

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
 What I meant was that why doesn't Walter want to document approved
 future language features before implementing them. It would be a lot
 easier for other frontend writers to create patches / own
 implementations if there was some documentary in the first place. Walter
 could even tag them with something like "[not implemented yet, will be
 implemented in DMD 1.5 or 2.0]". The Future-link in digitalmars-site is
 badly outdated and inadequate. The bugzilla isn't good for describing
 the syntax or features in a verbose manner.

I don't like bugzilla for new feature requests because:

1) Some idiot will inevitably declare D as "buggy" because bugzilla 
contains nnnn bug reports, never mind that some large proportion of it 
is not bug reports, but feature requests. Perception is very, very 
important, and putting feature requests in bugzilla makes them look like 
bugs. I have long experience with the shallow QA technique of merely 
counting the number of entries in a bug database and attempting to infer 
"quality" based solely on that number. (This was also much of the basis 
of my reluctance to use bugzilla at all.)

2) Bugzilla is a terrible mechanism for discussion, debate, etc. 
Newsgroups do threaded discussions very well, but newsgroups are not 
good for long term discussion, and there tends to be lots of duplication 
and fluff. A wiki seems to be ideal for this purpose, however.

3) There's generally very little argument about something being a bug or 
not. But for a feature, there's always lots of room for discussion, 
alternate syntaxes, various pros and cons, etc. None of that fits in 
with the binary is/isnot nature of bugzilla.

 I know there are proposals in bugzilla and in the newsgroups. The
 problem is that these are not official in any way. We don't know, what
 would the final implementation be. I bet it would accelerate the
 development of D as a language if there were some centralized guidelines
 somewhere. It would also eliminate some missteps like builtin regexps or
 bit arrays if we could see them syntactically before they are in the
 "production" version. I don't know how Walter sees this, but IMHO
 writing few pages of text in a natural language is a lot less time
 consuming than writing them as a code to the compiler. And you have to
 write those damn docs anyway sooner or later.

Discussion of a new feature will only get you so far. To know if it is 
right or not, it has to be implemented, and then used in a real program. 
Take a look at C++, for example. The features in it where the committee 
standardized existing practice work, the features designed by the 
committee as the result of endless discussions and expert review (but no 
implementation), don't work.

The bit feature sure did look good on paper <g>.

It reminds me of when I had some discussions with a professional race 
car driver. He said that if you weren't once in a while walking back to 
the pits carrying just the steering wheel, you weren't trying hard 
enough. If you were walking back too often, you were not thinking.

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:
 What I meant was that why doesn't Walter want to document approved
 future language features before implementing them. It would be a lot
 easier for other frontend writers to create patches / own
 implementations if there was some documentary in the first place. Walter
 could even tag them with something like "[not implemented yet, will be
 implemented in DMD 1.5 or 2.0]". The Future-link in digitalmars-site is
 badly outdated and inadequate. The bugzilla isn't good for describing
 the syntax or features in a verbose manner.

 
 I don't like bugzilla for new feature requests because:
 
 1) Some idiot will inevitably declare D as "buggy" because bugzilla
 contains nnnn bug reports, never mind that some large proportion of it
 is not bug reports, but feature requests. Perception is very, very
 important, and putting feature requests in bugzilla makes them look like
 bugs. I have long experience with the shallow QA technique of merely
 counting the number of entries in a bug database and attempting to infer
 "quality" based solely on that number. (This was also much of the basis
 of my reluctance to use bugzilla at all.)
 
 2) Bugzilla is a terrible mechanism for discussion, debate, etc.
 Newsgroups do threaded discussions very well, but newsgroups are not
 good for long term discussion, and there tends to be lots of duplication
 and fluff. A wiki seems to be ideal for this purpose, however.
 
 3) There's generally very little argument about something being a bug or
 not. But for a feature, there's always lots of room for discussion,
 alternate syntaxes, various pros and cons, etc. None of that fits in
 with the binary is/isnot nature of bugzilla.

Ok, I agree. I just read from your previous post that the development of
D is now officially concentrated on bug fixing and making a stable
release with working add-on software. It all makes a lot more sense now.

 
 I know there are proposals in bugzilla and in the newsgroups. The
 problem is that these are not official in any way. We don't know, what
 would the final implementation be. I bet it would accelerate the
 development of D as a language if there were some centralized guidelines
 somewhere. It would also eliminate some missteps like builtin regexps or
 bit arrays if we could see them syntactically before they are in the
 "production" version. I don't know how Walter sees this, but IMHO
 writing few pages of text in a natural language is a lot less time
 consuming than writing them as a code to the compiler. And you have to
 write those damn docs anyway sooner or later.

 
 Discussion of a new feature will only get you so far. To know if it is
 right or not, it has to be implemented, and then used in a real program.
 Take a look at C++, for example. The features in it where the committee
 standardized existing practice work, the features designed by the
 committee as the result of endless discussions and expert review (but no
 implementation), don't work.

Yes, I agree on this one too. Again I thought that there's no serious
feature-freeze going on. I was just worried that it's getting too hard
to keep up with the upcoming proposals. I know it has been discussed
before, but some kind of roadmap indicating that the current beta-state
is soon over would look good on digitalmars website.

 The bit feature sure did look good on paper <g>.

Luckily D is a practical language. :)

-- 
Jari-Matti

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 It might make sense to revive that Wiki page 
 for them, though.
 

I was thinking of doing something like that, but I think I won't be 
having time anytime soon afterall... :/

 Other enhancements which seem to have been approved:
 * array literals (for DMD 2.0).
 * array expressions (for DMD 2.0).
 * new 'auto' syntax for allocating classes on the stack.
 * coroutines (for DMD 2.0)
 * combining function pointers and delegates (for DMD 2.0).
 
 Can anyone think of any more?
 
 It might make sense to create a DMD2.0 product in Bugzilla to put those 
 into.

Hum... I'm much more worried about "1.0" before that.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Christof Boeckler <boeckler in.tum.de> writes:

Walter Bright schrieb:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.
 
 1) Why so long?
 
 Because "D" is un-googlable, there needs to be a reasonably unique, 
 recognizable phrase for it. Nothing works as well as "d programming 
 language". There's no ambiguity about what it's about. Besides, most 
 people will get to the web site via a click, rather than typing it in.

I don't care about the length: form follows function! In that perspective 
it's a good choice! Nobody will ever type it twice, thanks to bookmarks.

Go ahead Walter!

Christof

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Christof Boeckler wrote:
 Walter Bright schrieb:
 
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

 1) Why so long?

 Because "D" is un-googlable, there needs to be a reasonably unique, 
 recognizable phrase for it. Nothing works as well as "d programming 
 language". There's no ambiguity about what it's about. Besides, most 
 people will get to the web site via a click, rather than typing it in.

 
 
 I don't care about the length: form follows function! In that 
 perspective it's a good choice! Nobody will ever type it twice, thanks 
 to bookmarks.
 
 Go ahead Walter!
 
 Christof

come to think of it, programmers should be used to typing alot of stuff :)

pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e3osei$g90$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

1) Why so long?

Because "D" is un-googlable, there needs to be a reasonably unique, 
recognizable phrase for it. Nothing works as well as "d programming 
language". There's no ambiguity about what it's about. Besides, most 
people will get to the web site via a click, rather than typing it in.


2) Why the embedded '-'?

In my experiments, google doesn't separate dprogramminglanguage into 3 
words. But it will if there are embedded '-'s.


3) Why 'org' instead of 'com'?

Because the D language itself is not a company, nor is it a proprietary 
language. Hence, 'org' is the most appropriate for it.


4) When will it go live?

It'll take a couple days at least.

Not a bad idea.  I gather this will be an alias for digitalmars.com/d?

Personally, I don't think this will be a problem because:

1) Like you say, its imminently searchable.
2) Most browsers feature auto-complete for url's so clicking the location and
hitting 'www.d' on the keyboard will most likely complete the whole mess.
3) It'll encourage bookmarking (a good thing).

Barring cache wipes, I almost never type the entire URL for anything more than
once.  Anything else that I, or my browser, forget about I just google instead.
I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in having use habits like these. ;)

- EricAnderton at yahoo

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

pragma wrote:
 Barring cache wipes, I almost never type the entire URL for anything more than
 once.  Anything else that I, or my browser, forget about I just google instead.
 I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in having use habits like these. ;)

You're not. I even created my own home page on my local machine, with 
all the sites I regularly go to listed. Nothing is more than two clicks 
away, then!

One problem with abbreviations is it makes it harder to remember. "d 
programming language", while long, is easy to remember.

Carlos <noone nowhere.com> writes:

Cool!

Have you decided on a design yet ?

So far it seems to be down to

http://hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html
http://img114.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mockup5ey.jpg
http://dworks.marte.ro/template1.png
http://dworks.marte.ro/template2.png

And logos

http://www.sukimashita.com/d/
http://dworks.marte.ro/logos.png
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Logo

Walter Bright wrote:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.
 
 1) Why so long?
 
 Because "D" is un-googlable, there needs to be a reasonably unique, 
 recognizable phrase for it. Nothing works as well as "d programming 
 language". There's no ambiguity about what it's about. Besides, most 
 people will get to the web site via a click, rather than typing it in.
 
 
 2) Why the embedded '-'?
 
 In my experiments, google doesn't separate dprogramminglanguage into 3 
 words. But it will if there are embedded '-'s.
 
 
 3) Why 'org' instead of 'com'?
 
 Because the D language itself is not a company, nor is it a proprietary 
 language. Hence, 'org' is the most appropriate for it.
 
 
 4) When will it go live?
 
 It'll take a couple days at least.

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Carlos wrote:
 Cool!
 
 Have you decided on a design yet ?

What's wrong with the design we have at the moment?

 So far it seems to be down to
 
 http://hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html
 http://img114.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mockup5ey.jpg
 http://dworks.marte.ro/template1.png
 http://dworks.marte.ro/template2.png

<snip top of upside-down reply>

Please, not one that's just a huge graphic!

Seriously, while they may be just what the site might look like and the 
HTML might have not yet been written, web design isn't about graphic 
design.  It's about conveying information in such a way that it is 
accessible to a variety of people in a variety of websurfing environments.

OK, so there is some importance in the visual presentation, but this is 
only secondary to structure and usability.  In order to evaluate visual 
designs for websites, we need to make sure they can be implemented in a 
way that degrades gracefully and preserves accessibility.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Carlos <noone nowhere.com> writes:

 What's wrong with the design we have at the moment?

Its hard to navigate.  I've come to like the DM/d site but thats because 
  I love the language and have a soft spot for it, newcomers might be 
put off.

The download link needs to be readily apparent and listed on the index 
page, right now its buried on the left pane under the mis-leading title 
'Tools'.  It needs to be big and easy to see.

There is a D for Win32 page, but no D for linux or D for Mac.

The one example 'wc' is too large.  There needs to be several examples 
of increasing complexity.  There also needs to be one big example, well 
commented, that shows off all the power of D , and easy enough for 
programmers to refer to for syntax.

The D community is a huge part of D.  An organized and easily locatable 
page on the D community would help allot.

The news page is deceptively called 'Forum' , and the News link is 
actually a page describing the newsgroups.

There needs to be a comprehensive set of tutorials on the 'official' 
site, dsource.org's tutorials would work well.

The Phobos API doc's are good, if not some what incomplete.

I like the comparison chart, but most people respond angrily too it.  I 
think its better not to compare it to other languages, bluntly saying D 
is better than X language , while true, just provokes anger.  I think a 
D for ( C, C++, Java, Python ) programmers articles would provide a 
better way to ease programmers used to other languages into the 
language.  Let them 'discover' how kick-ass D is themselves.


The Language link is confusing.  For example, the other day I was 
looking for the syntax on how to use 'is' for type deduction with 
templates ( is(T : int ), is ( T == int ) , which is nowhere on the 
template page.  Searching for 'is' obviously gave me tons of false hits. 
  It's also not listed alphabetically, I have to go over the entire list 
to find the 'Arrays' page.


 Seriously, while they may be just what the site might look like and the
 HTML might have not yet been written, web design isn't about graphic
 design.  It's about conveying information in such a way that it is
 accessible to a variety of people in a variety of websurfing 

environments.

I agree its not _solely_ about graphic design, but an aesthtically 
pleasing design goes a long way.

I agree strongly about it conveying information.  The best thing this 
website can do it is to provide easy access to the most common parts of 
D, and provide a way to easily find any other information thats more 
specific.

Usability and ease of use are 100% what this site should be about :).

Charlie


Stewart Gordon wrote:
 Carlos wrote:
 Cool!

 Have you decided on a design yet ?

 
 What's wrong with the design we have at the moment?
 
 So far it seems to be down to

 http://hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html
 http://img114.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mockup5ey.jpg
 http://dworks.marte.ro/template1.png
 http://dworks.marte.ro/template2.png

 <snip top of upside-down reply>
 
 Please, not one that's just a huge graphic!
 
 Seriously, while they may be just what the site might look like and the 
 HTML might have not yet been written, web design isn't about graphic 
 design.  It's about conveying information in such a way that it is 
 accessible to a variety of people in a variety of websurfing environments.
 
 OK, so there is some importance in the visual presentation, but this is 
 only secondary to structure and usability.  In order to evaluate visual 
 designs for websites, we need to make sure they can be implemented in a 
 way that degrades gracefully and preserves accessibility.
 
 Stewart.
 

Tiberiu Gal <Tiberiu_member pathlink.com> writes:

it's a bit of "way too long"... :) but anyway, what's next?
you want a strict language specification site?
a d language portal?
a big impact flash site?
I'm here to help, just let me know what can I do



It's Tiberiu Gal, 
but I never know which is the first and which is the last name
:)

jcc7 <jcc7_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <4460E78B.9090706 nowhere.com>, Carlos says...
Cool!

Have you decided on a design yet ?

So far it seems to be down to

http://hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html

http://img114.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mockup5ey.jpg
http://dworks.marte.ro/template1.png
http://dworks.marte.ro/template2.png

Have the designers of these actually shared any HTML with us yet? They look nice
as graphics, but it might take horrible HTML/CSS hacks to get them to display as
webpages.

jcc7

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeirosATgmail SPAM.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:

-> d-programming-language.org

Whoa, I don't like it either, it's awful. It's too verbose, even if with 
modern browsers you don't type any more than any other site, it still is 
verbose. :/
And the disadvantage of that manifests itself in many tiny ways that are 
hard to detail or explain, but they have their effet I believe (like 
chaos theory...).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.
 
 1) Why so long?
 
 Because "D" is un-googlable, there needs to be a reasonably unique, 
 recognizable phrase for it. Nothing works as well as "d programming 
 language". There's no ambiguity about what it's about. Besides, most 
 people will get to the web site via a click, rather than typing it in.
 
 
 2) Why the embedded '-'?
 
 In my experiments, google doesn't separate dprogramminglanguage into 3 
 words. But it will if there are embedded '-'s.
 
 
 3) Why 'org' instead of 'com'?
 
 Because the D language itself is not a company, nor is it a proprietary 
 language. Hence, 'org' is the most appropriate for it.
 
 
 4) When will it go live?
 
 It'll take a couple days at least.

Cool! I don't mind the long name at all, it also has the benefit of 
being the only site I visit that starts with 'd-', and after that 
Firefox's auto-completion kicks in.

Anyway, will this site be a replica of www.digitalmars.com/d , or will 
it be a more community oriented site with tutorials?

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

clayasaurus wrote:
 Anyway, will this site be a replica of www.digitalmars.com/d , or will 
 it be a more community oriented site with tutorials?

I see it as more community oriented, with accounts set up for people who 
want to personally oversee things like the D wiki, etc.

Justin C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 I've just registered it, so it can be the 'official' D site.

Ahhh. I like the new favicon at http://d-programming-language.org. Very 
appropriate.

By the way, I'm kind of hesitant to change my "D Programming Language" 
links to the new URL until there's some actual content there. It's not 
that I don't appreciate the current "placeholder" page as being nice, 
but it'd be great if there were more links (such as the ones mentioned 
on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html) or perhaps even start 
hosting/mirroring the D specification. It especially needs links to 
http://www.dsource.org/ and http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/.

Or if you're waiting for Nick to choose wiki software and set up a wiki, 
that makes sense, too. I'd just hate to loose the momentum of the new 
domain for D because everyone was waiting for someone else to get it 
started. (I'd hate to see http://d-programming-language.org/ become the 
next http://www.gnu-d.org/). ;)

-- 
jcc7

Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

Justin C Calvarese wrote:
 By the way, I'm kind of hesitant to change my "D Programming Language" 
 links to the new URL until there's some actual content there. It's not 
 that I don't appreciate the current "placeholder" page as being nice, 
 but it'd be great if there were more links (such as the ones mentioned 
 on http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html) or perhaps even start 
 hosting/mirroring the D specification. It especially needs links to 
 http://www.dsource.org/ and http://home.earthlink.net/~dvdfrdmn/d/.
 
 Or if you're waiting for Nick to choose wiki software and set up a wiki, 
 that makes sense, too. I'd just hate to loose the momentum of the new 
 domain for D because everyone was waiting for someone else to get it 
 started. (I'd hate to see http://d-programming-language.org/ become the 
 next http://www.gnu-d.org/). ;)

I agree, I've just been lazy.