www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - [Article Context, First Draft] Concurrency, Parallelism and D

reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and 
parallelism for D's article contest.  It's not an official submission 
yet, but feedback would be appreciated.

http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/
Apr 07 2011
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 4/7/2011 7:01 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and
 parallelism for D's article contest. It's not an official submission
 yet, but feedback would be appreciated.

 http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/

Made a few revisions, posted to Reddit. Please vote. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/gmbkg/concurrency_parallelism_and_d/
Apr 09 2011
next sibling parent Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> writes:
dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/7/2011 7:01 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and
 parallelism for D's article contest. It's not an official submission
 yet, but feedback would be appreciated.

 http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/

Made a few revisions, posted to Reddit. Please vote. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/gmbkg/concurrency_parallelism_and_d/

Thank you for this article! It's very well explanation of threading issues and also it clearly shows that phobos multithreading support is wisely designed and comfortable to use. Nice!
Apr 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 4/9/11 3:03 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/7/2011 7:01 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and
 parallelism for D's article contest. It's not an official submission
 yet, but feedback would be appreciated.

 http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/

Made a few revisions, posted to Reddit. Please vote. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/gmbkg/concurrency_parallelism_and_d/

Looks like your link was classified as spam. You may want to follow up with the moderators. A polite request has never been refused in my experience. Andrei
Apr 09 2011
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 4/9/11 5:04 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 4/9/11 3:03 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/7/2011 7:01 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and
 parallelism for D's article contest. It's not an official submission
 yet, but feedback would be appreciated.

 http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/

Made a few revisions, posted to Reddit. Please vote. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/gmbkg/concurrency_parallelism_and_d/

Looks like your link was classified as spam. You may want to follow up with the moderators. A polite request has never been refused in my experience. Andrei

Reposted, now seems to have made it: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/gmdq3/concurrency_parallelism_and_the_d_programming/ Andrei
Apr 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/09/2011 03:03 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/7/2011 7:01 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and
 parallelism for D's article contest. It's not an official submission
 yet, but feedback would be appreciated.

 http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/

Made a few revisions, posted to Reddit. Please vote. http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/gmbkg/concurrency_parallelism_and_d/

I think the article's title is missing a comma btw. Andrei
Apr 09 2011
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?
Apr 09 2011
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei
Apr 09 2011
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.
Apr 09 2011
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book) and Strunk/White. They both recommend the comma, no ifs and buts (hard for me to get used to because in Romanian that comma is _never_ correct). Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get to decide everything about it. A great feeling! Andrei
Apr 09 2011
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s
 Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a
 Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic!
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
 Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get
 to decide everything about it. A great feeling!
 Andrei

Wow, I never realized it was this deep an issue. Now I know what World War III will likely be fought over.
Apr 09 2011
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 10.04.2011 05:05, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic:
 On 4/10/11, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:
 == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s
 Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a
 Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic!
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
 Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get
 to decide everything about it. A great feeling!
 Andrei

Wow, I never realized it was this deep an issue. Now I know what World War III will likely be fought over.

This will likely be the very cause of World War III: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation

WTF is that article (and it's massive list of references) supposed to be a joke? (And how can people use the under orientation? ;))
Apr 09 2011
parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Daniel Gibson (metalcaedes gmail.com)'s article
 Am 10.04.2011 05:05, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic:
 On 4/10/11, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:
 == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s
 Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a
 Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic!
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
 Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get
 to decide everything about it. A great feeling!
 Andrei

Wow, I never realized it was this deep an issue. Now I know what World War III will likely be fought over.

This will likely be the very cause of World War III: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation

a joke? (And how can people use the under orientation? ;))

I prefer it however it happens to be facing when it comes out of the package. However it comes out, that's what Nature intended. I can't believe these despicable excuses for human beings that would intentionally disregard Nature's intention and flip the thing around.
Apr 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:inr5cq$m2e$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book) and Strunk/White. They both recommend the comma, no ifs and buts (hard for me to get used to because in Romanian that comma is _never_ correct). Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get to decide everything about it. A great feeling!

Nice to know us programmers aren't the only ones who do serious bikeshedding :)
Apr 10 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)

Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.
Apr 10 2011
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 4/10/2011 7:29 PM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)

Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.

Another of my memories from my middle school education. I specifically remember being told not to use split infinitives. Then, a few weeks later we were watching the daily news video that was part of the middle school curriculum at the time and it was mentioned that the Oxford dictionary had voted to consider split infinitives proper grammar. (This was in either late 1998 or early 1999.) All this happened with the teacher in the room watching.
Apr 10 2011
next sibling parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 11.04.2011 01:51, schrieb dsimcha:
 On 4/10/2011 7:29 PM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)

Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.

Another of my memories from my middle school education. I specifically remember being told not to use split infinitives. Then, a few weeks later we were watching the daily news video that was part of the middle school curriculum at the time and it was mentioned that the Oxford dictionary had voted to consider split infinitives proper grammar. (This was in either late 1998 or early 1999.) All this happened with the teacher in the room watching.

"Those that can't do, teach" (And those that can't teach become lawyers and sue the pants off everyone else to make up for it)[1] ;-) [1] http://sheldoncomics.com/archive/040605.html
Apr 10 2011
prev sibling parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/10/2011 7:29 PM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)

Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.

Another of my memories from my middle school education. I specifically remember being told not to use split infinitives. Then, a few weeks later we were watching the daily news video that was part of the middle school curriculum at the time and it was mentioned that the Oxford dictionary had voted to consider split infinitives proper grammar. (This was in either late 1998 or early 1999.) All this happened with the teacher in the room watching.

Bill Bryson's 'Mother Tongue' contains an excellent diatribe against that and other silly rules. He asks the question, who originally comes up with these rules? And the answer is, hobbyists. It's quite incredible where some of them originate. Is there a split infinitive in the first sentence below? "We must boldly go where none have gone before." "We have to boldly go where none have gone before."
Apr 10 2011
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/10/2011 06:29 PM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)

Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.

You may want to reconsider. This is one book that most everybody who is in the writing business in any capacity agrees with: my editor, heavyweight technical writers, my advisor and a few other professors... Besides you can't discount the book on account of one item you disagree with. The book has hundreds of items, and it is near inevitable one will find an issue a couple of them. Andrei
Apr 10 2011
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/10/2011 06:29 PM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)

Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.

You may want to reconsider. This is one book that most everybody who is in the writing business in any capacity agrees with: my editor, heavyweight technical writers, my advisor and a few other professors...

My experience is quite different. Maybe it's different in the US (I encountered the book from an American colleague, I've never seen it used by anyone else).
 Besides you can't discount the book on account of one item you disagree 
 with. The book has hundreds of items, and it is near inevitable one will 
 find an issue a couple of them.
 
 Andrei

For sure, but it was not the only item. The recommendation is use 'that' vs 'which' was an even more offensive item. There were several recommendations in that book which I thought were dreadful. I also read a couple of scathing criticisms of that book. (I think one was in Bill Bryson's excellent 'Mother Tongue'). In fairness, it had a few good examples, but in general I could not stomach the snobbish pedantry in that book. I've read too much functional grammar to take arbitrary normative rules seriously, when they are not backed up by an extensive corpus. (Which is why I recommend 'split infinitives' as a good litmus test -- if they say "don't do it", they haven't used a corpus).
Apr 11 2011
next sibling parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 11/04/2011 09:09, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/10/2011 06:29 PM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)

Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.

You may want to reconsider. This is one book that most everybody who is in the writing business in any capacity agrees with: my editor, heavyweight technical writers, my advisor and a few other professors...

My experience is quite different. Maybe it's different in the US (I encountered the book from an American colleague, I've never seen it used by anyone else).
 Besides you can't discount the book on account of one item you
 disagree with. The book has hundreds of items, and it is near
 inevitable one will find an issue a couple of them.

 Andrei

For sure, but it was not the only item. The recommendation is use 'that' vs 'which' was an even more offensive item. There were several recommendations in that book which I thought were dreadful. I also read a couple of scathing criticisms of that book. (I think one was in Bill Bryson's excellent 'Mother Tongue'). In fairness, it had a few good examples, but in general I could not stomach the snobbish pedantry in that book. I've read too much functional grammar to take arbitrary normative rules seriously, when they are not backed up by an extensive corpus. (Which is why I recommend 'split infinitives' as a good litmus test -- if they say "don't do it", they haven't used a corpus).

I have to agree with Don, burn the book, it is wholly responsible for the decline in creativity in English writing (imho). A...
Apr 11 2011
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/11/2011 03:26 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:
 I have to agree with Don, burn the book, it is wholly responsible for
 the decline in creativity in English writing (imho).

The book is for technical writing, and I didn't find absorbing it has hurt in any way whatever creativity I may have. Andrei
Apr 11 2011
parent reply Alix Pexton <alix.DOT.pexton gmail.DOT.com> writes:
On 11/04/2011 12:56, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/11/2011 03:26 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:
 I have to agree with Don, burn the book, it is wholly responsible for
 the decline in creativity in English writing (imho).

The book is for technical writing, and I didn't find absorbing it has hurt in any way whatever creativity I may have. Andrei

Actually, I meant Strunk/White >< A...
Apr 11 2011
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/11/2011 07:31 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:
 On 11/04/2011 12:56, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/11/2011 03:26 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:
 I have to agree with Don, burn the book, it is wholly responsible for
 the decline in creativity in English writing (imho).

The book is for technical writing, and I didn't find absorbing it has hurt in any way whatever creativity I may have. Andrei

Actually, I meant Strunk/White ><

That I'd agree with. For what it's worth S/W is considered dated and not-necessarily recommended in technical publishing circles. Andrei
Apr 11 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/11/2011 03:09 AM, Don wrote:
 For sure, but it was not the only item. The recommendation is use 'that'
 vs 'which' was an even more offensive item.

I found that rule to be very helpful to my writing. Andrei
Apr 11 2011
prev sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 04/11/2011 03:09 AM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/10/2011 06:29 PM, Don wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)

Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.

You may want to reconsider. This is one book that most everybody who is in the writing business in any capacity agrees with: my editor, heavyweight technical writers, my advisor and a few other professors...

My experience is quite different. Maybe it's different in the US (I encountered the book from an American colleague, I've never seen it used by anyone else).
 Besides you can't discount the book on account of one item you
 disagree with. The book has hundreds of items, and it is near
 inevitable one will find an issue a couple of them.

 Andrei

For sure, but it was not the only item. The recommendation is use 'that' vs 'which' was an even more offensive item. There were several recommendations in that book which I thought were dreadful. I also read a couple of scathing criticisms of that book. (I think one was in Bill Bryson's excellent 'Mother Tongue'). In fairness, it had a few good examples, but in general I could not stomach the snobbish pedantry in that book. I've read too much functional grammar to take arbitrary normative rules seriously, when they are not backed up by an extensive corpus. (Which is why I recommend 'split infinitives' as a good litmus test -- if they say "don't do it", they haven't used a corpus).

I have "Mother Tongue" as well, haven't read it yet. You recommendation bumped it up a notch. One thought - since you enjoy this kind of stuff, I think you'd find great reward in writing. Since you have so much stuff to say about D, I highly recommend you try your pen more often. A lot of good things are happening in D lately, and in no small part due to you. It is worth sharing all that good stuff with the larger community. Andrei
Apr 11 2011
prev sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 4/10/11 1:23 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:37 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 [ . . . ]
 I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book) and Strunk/White. They
 both recommend the comma, no ifs and buts (hard for me to get used to
 because in Romanian that comma is _never_ correct).

The "bibles" in this situation are "The Oxford Style Manual" and "The Chicago Manual of Style", everything else is mere commentary. :-) Romanian is not English, rules do not transfer ;-)
 Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a
 Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic!
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

Since when has the "Oxford Comma" been known as the "Harvard Comma". Never. Pah.
 Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get
 to decide everything about it. A great feeling!

Except when the sub-editors impose the publisher's choices. Of course they always work to either "The Oxford Style Manual" or "The Chicago Manual of Style", so the moral is to buy one of them and work to it. http://www.suite101.com/content/the-chicago-manual-of-style-vs-the-oxford-style-manual-a267432 Also "The Oxford Style Manual" is smaller and cheaper as well as being better. And of course English, whereas "The Chicago Manual of Style" is just American English. I shall now duck to avoid the spamming that this troll will invoke. :-)

In fact let me extend the same suggestion to you too: write! You are a seasoned writer who has recently worked a lot in and on D, so I'm sure you have a lot to share. And you stand to gain an iPad, too. Andrei
Apr 11 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 10.04.2011 04:27, schrieb dsimcha:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

Having both "and" and the comma seems redundant to me. But I'm German and we don't have a comma before and ("und") in lists* so maybe I'm just not used to it. Cheers, - Daniel * an Exception is when a subordinate clause ends before the "and", like in "I know programming languages like C, D, which kicks ass, and Java"
Apr 09 2011
parent Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 10.04.2011 06:04, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
 Am 10.04.2011 04:27, schrieb dsimcha:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.

 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

Having both "and" and the comma seems redundant to me. But I'm German and we don't have a comma before and ("und") in lists* so maybe I'm just not used to it. Cheers, - Daniel * an Exception is when a subordinate clause ends before the "and", like in "I know programming languages like C, D, which kicks ass, and Java"

I'm sure that the wikipedia article goes into a fair bit of detail on it, but there are cases where the lack of the comma leads to ambiguity. I believe that the current recommendation is to always put the comma in, but it's bound to depend on who you talk to - even among English teachers. - Jonathan M Davis

You can always have ambiguities, e.g. "I know programming languages like C, D, my favorite, Java and Haskell" - does "my favorite" belong to the list or does it describe D? And shouldn't there be two commas after "favorite" (for me this kind of feels like a missing closing bracket)? Or, a slightly altered version of a wikipedia example: "Among those interviewed were his three ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson, Horst Hacker and Robert Duvall." - are Kris, Horst and Robert his ex-wives (same problem like in the original wikipedia example)? Alternative version: "Among those interviewed were his three ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson, Horst Hacker, and Robert Duvall." - not better at all: It's not clear whether "Kris Kristofferson, Horst Hacker, and Robert Duvall" is a list of ex-wives (it's a list, so we put a comma before the and etc) or if "his three ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson, Horst Hacker, and Robert Duvall." is a list of six people. So I think a comma before "and" doesn't help very much in solving ambiguities. Cheers, - Daniel
Apr 09 2011
prev sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
 Am 10.04.2011 04:27, schrieb dsimcha:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.
 
 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

Having both "and" and the comma seems redundant to me. But I'm German and we don't have a comma before and ("und") in lists* so maybe I'm just not used to it. Cheers, - Daniel * an Exception is when a subordinate clause ends before the "and", like in "I know programming languages like C, D, which kicks ass, and Java"

I'm sure that the wikipedia article goes into a fair bit of detail on it, but there are cases where the lack of the comma leads to ambiguity. I believe that the current recommendation is to always put the comma in, but it's bound to depend on who you talk to - even among English teachers. - Jonathan M Davis
Apr 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
On 4/10/11, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:
 == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s
 Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a
 Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic!
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
 Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get
 to decide everything about it. A great feeling!
 Andrei

Wow, I never realized it was this deep an issue. Now I know what World War III will likely be fought over.

This will likely be the very cause of World War III: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation
Apr 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
Btw, excellent article. ^^
Apr 09 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:37 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[ . . . ]
 I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book) and Strunk/White. They=

 both recommend the comma, no ifs and buts (hard for me to get used to=20
 because in Romanian that comma is _never_ correct).

The "bibles" in this situation are "The Oxford Style Manual" and "The Chicago Manual of Style", everything else is mere commentary. :-) Romanian is not English, rules do not transfer ;-)
 Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a=20
 Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic!=20
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

Since when has the "Oxford Comma" been known as the "Harvard Comma". Never. Pah.
 Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get=

 to decide everything about it. A great feeling!

Except when the sub-editors impose the publisher's choices. Of course they always work to either "The Oxford Style Manual" or "The Chicago Manual of Style", so the moral is to buy one of them and work to it. http://www.suite101.com/content/the-chicago-manual-of-style-vs-the-oxford-s= tyle-manual-a267432 Also "The Oxford Style Manual" is smaller and cheaper as well as being better. And of course English, whereas "The Chicago Manual of Style" is just American English. I shall now duck to avoid the spamming that this troll will invoke. :-) --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Apr 09 2011
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On Apr 9, 2011, at 7:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.
=20
 Andrei

Where?

Where could it ever be? After "parallelism". =20 Andrei

Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.

I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book) and Strunk/White. They =

because in Romanian that comma is _never_ correct).
=20
 Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma This issue has a lot of history. In fact, there's been at least one = book written about it: = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_%26_Leaves=
Apr 12 2011
prev sibling parent reply Torarin <torarind gmail.com> writes:
2011/4/8 dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com>:
 Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and
 parallelism for D's article contest. =A0It's not an official submission y=

 but feedback would be appreciated.

 http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/

A very good article! And I like that you linked to other articles that go into more detail on relevant subjects. I wouldn't mind a couple more examples. Torarin
Apr 09 2011
parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
Am 10.04.2011 00:27, schrieb Torarin:
 2011/4/8 dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com>:
 Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and
 parallelism for D's article contest.  It's not an official submission yet,
 but feedback would be appreciated.

 http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/

A very good article! And I like that you linked to other articles that go into more detail on relevant subjects. I wouldn't mind a couple more examples. Torarin

After all the language bikeshedding I'll add something on-topic to this thread ;) I agree with Torarin: It's a very good article, I like how further explanations are linked and I also wouldn't mind some more examples. Some additional notes: * A link to the std.parallelism docs would make sense * "This means that no data that is not either immutable or shared may be transitively reachable via pointers or references passed into a spawned function or passed as a message." is a strange sentence with those two negations in it. * Maybe you could compare std.parallelism to OpenMP in terms of syntax and functionality? That would probably help all the people that are familiar with it. Cheers, - Daniel
Apr 10 2011
next sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 4/10/2011 8:28 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
 Am 10.04.2011 00:27, schrieb Torarin:
 2011/4/8 dsimcha<dsimcha yahoo.com>:
 Here's a first draft of an article on D's approaches to concurrency and
 parallelism for D's article contest.  It's not an official submission yet,
 but feedback would be appreciated.

 http://davesdprogramming.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/7/

A very good article! And I like that you linked to other articles that go into more detail on relevant subjects. I wouldn't mind a couple more examples. Torarin

After all the language bikeshedding I'll add something on-topic to this thread ;) I agree with Torarin: It's a very good article, I like how further explanations are linked and I also wouldn't mind some more examples. Some additional notes: * A link to the std.parallelism docs would make sense

Good idea.
   * "This means that no data that is not either immutable or shared may
 be transitively reachable via pointers or references passed into a
 spawned function or passed as a message." is a strange sentence with
 those two negations in it.

Yeah, this could be worded a little better. Will change.
   * Maybe you could compare std.parallelism to OpenMP in terms of syntax
 and functionality? That would probably help all the people that are
 familiar with it.

A few others have asked for this, but honestly, I don't know much about OpenMP. I've read a little about it but never actually used it before, so I don't think I could write a solid comparison.
 Cheers,
 - Daniel

Apr 10 2011
prev sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 4/10/2011 8:28 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
 After all the language bikeshedding I'll add something on-topic to this
 thread ;)

 I agree with Torarin: It's a very good article, I like how further
 explanations are linked and I also wouldn't mind some more examples.

Can you please give some specifics about where more examples would help? I intentionally left out using shared, because it's somewhat complex and buggy and IMHO it's the ugly bastard child of message passing, intentionally limited and meant to be used infrequently in the std.concurrency paradigm.
Apr 10 2011