• Stewart Gordon (29/29) Dec 15 2006 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us.
• Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) (8/11) Dec 15 2006 Is this jesting? I'm lacking the appropriate background. Either way, let...
• Unknown W. Brackets (7/61) Dec 15 2006 Not being perfect?
• Tyro (11/11) Dec 15 2006 Stewart! Your abilities obviously supersede those of Walters;
• Alexander Panek (5/5) Dec 16 2006 You know the difference between you and Walter?
• Georg Wrede (4/5) Dec 16 2006 Mutiny???
• ideage (4/4) Dec 16 2006 Stewart make mistake possible,but help our keep improving D.
• Tom S (5/6) Dec 16 2006 For the most part, Bilbo Baggins. I can't think of a more annoying
• Pragma (7/12) Dec 18 2006 Did you say "Bilbo Baggins"? In that case, here's a follow-up to a much...
• rm (8/8) Dec 16 2006 I don't know what you are trying to proof. But concerning Walter you've
• Stewart Gordon (4/7) Dec 16 2006
• Brad Anderson (10/11) Dec 16 2006 Stewart,
• Stewart Gordon (5/13) Dec 16 2006
• Jarrett Billingsley (5/5) Dec 16 2006 "Stewart Gordon" wrote in message
• Gregor Richards (6/14) Dec 18 2006 "You're so full of yourself, you're going to have to get some buckets to...
• Kenny Bentley (29/29) Dec 16 2006 I have been using D for over a year now (maybe 2), some in commercial pr...
• Stewart Gordon (22/58) Dec 16 2006 Indeed. I lose count of the projects I've tired of in my time and not
• John Reimer (30/30) Dec 16 2006 Hmm...
• Alexander Panek (5/15) Dec 16 2006 LOL, yea. Hahaha. Great. ... but wait! Maybe Stewart IS Walter?!
• Kyle Furlong (2/41) Dec 16 2006 You, sir, *DELIVER*.
• nobody_ (1/5) Dec 17 2006 Nobody finds this amusing!
• Alexander Panek (3/3) Dec 17 2006 nobody_ wrote:
• John Reimer (11/11) Dec 17 2006 Just want to apologize about this "cute" reponse in that last post. It ...
• Kyle Furlong (27/81) Dec 16 2006 While I told myself I wasn't going to go here, I am.
• Georg Wrede (8/19) Dec 17 2006 First Derek, now Stewart. The next person who starts brewing peeves
• Derek Parnell (27/49) Dec 17 2006 I was not the first. I'm pretty sure there has been a number of people
• Georg Wrede (8/23) Dec 17 2006 The pace at which D has been moving is unbelievable. If Walter
• Derek Parnell (6/18) Dec 17 2006 And you expect that by publicly implying that I'm generally aggressive i...
• Georg Wrede (2/20) Dec 17 2006 No, Derek, I did not.
• John Reimer (29/45) Dec 17 2006 Guys? Peace?
• janderson (23/23) Dec 16 2006 Rant,
• BCS (9/14) Dec 16 2006 The only way to end the formatting wars is to make a language that only
• =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= (2/19) Dec 17 2006
• Stewart Gordon (4/7) Dec 17 2006
• Don Clugston (3/15) Dec 17 2006 Not necessarily - the 'whitespace' programming language is another
• %u (5/5) Dec 17 2006 please do not answer these posts or any other post in this direction any...
• Unknown W. Brackets (20/49) Dec 18 2006 I disagree.
• Stewart Gordon (24/24) Dec 20 2006 What is is with you people? OK, so a few of you did start to take it
• Georg Wrede (15/25) Dec 20 2006 Now is not the time for this. Wait till the 1.0 dust has settled, which
• Mike Parker (11/13) Dec 20 2006 There's a thing called 'tact', something of which you are severely
• rm (2/17) Dec 21 2006 +1
• Jarrett Billingsley (12/14) Dec 20 2006 Presentation! Tact! Have you any training in the social graces?
• Stewart Gordon (8/14) Dec 22 2006 So that I know for next time, how do you reckon my points could be put
• Jarrett Billingsley (37/41) Dec 22 2006 Tact is something that you usually just have to pick up.
• Stewart Gordon (14/50) Dec 23 2006 True, they are things that annoy me, but to imply that I was the only
• Alexander Panek (2/2) Dec 23 2006 We We We We We We --wtf!
• Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) (3/6) Dec 21 2006 "Nobody put a gun to yer head."
• rm (5/13) Dec 21 2006 Better even, Stewart clearly made a judgmental error. He thought it
• John Reimer (35/41) Dec 21 2006 That statement (or quote) doesn't follow the reasoning presented. Stewa...
• Manfred Nowak (16/20) Dec 21 2006 It is a known phenomenon in organizations, especially charity
• Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) (14/21) Dec 22 2006 Ionno. I might have a wrong or simplistic image of the situation, but to...
• John Reimer (50/71) Dec 22 2006 Andrei, I think you were responding to my thread, rather than Manfred's....
• Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) (9/14) Dec 23 2006 "Nobody put a gun to yer head" is a memorable quote from George
• John Reimer (6/19) Dec 23 2006 I assumed it was something of the sort. :)
• Waldemar (19/36) Dec 23 2006 That's very informative and interesting.
• Stewart Gordon (26/61) Dec 23 2006 This may be true. However, the odd reminders of such things as fixes
• Bruno Medeiros (30/55) Dec 23 2006 I think it is important to clearly note the following:
• Bruno Medeiros (11/65) Dec 23 2006 The fact that some of Walter's habits are annoying is of no relevance.
• John Reimer (6/11) Dec 23 2006 Good point, Bruno. The focus was entirely incorrect. Personal feelings...
• Stewart Gordon (11/24) Dec 23 2006 At least half of my points can indeed be considered as showing how we

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 
Here are some of my peeves, to start it off:


1. Dodging issues, including important ones such as

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.bugs&article_id=9360
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=41553

(Why is webnews showing only two messages from this in the thread view, 
even when viewing the message?)

2. Denying responsibility for his
own slip-ups.  For example, marking what's left of

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=327

INVALID despite this being due to an obvious mistake he made while 
updating the spec, as well as violating the design of D.  No doubt there 
are other instances, but I can't seem to think of them at the moment.


3. Otherwise hitting the INVALID 'button' without properly analysing 
things, meaning that it becomes necessary to reopen.


4. Implementing his own ideas but keeping even constructive criticism - 
let alone implementation - of other people's ideas to a minimum.


5. Implementing new features when he should be concentrating on getting 
things working properly.


6. Postponing indefinitely, for no apparent reason, folding in fixes 
people have gone to all the trouble to write.


7. Not using a spellchecker.


8. Apparently never learning from the spelling corrections we keep 
giving him.

(Please forgive me if you _have_ since heeded the advice in
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=631
)


More contributions to this list would be more than welcome!

Stewart.

"Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 
 Here are some of my peeves, to start it off:

[snip]
 More contributions to this list would be more than welcome!

Is this jesting? I'm lacking the appropriate background. Either way, let 
me add:

9. Putting up with people who behave as if they paid for his product

and leave it as a joke if the other post was one, and as not a joke 
otherwise :o).


Andrei

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

Not being perfect?

Not catering to everyone's wishes but instead caring more about the 
greater good of the product?

Wishing to avoid bloat?

Not being eighty people?

...

-[Unknown]


 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 
 Here are some of my peeves, to start it off:
 
 
 1. Dodging issues, including important ones such as
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.
ugs&article_id=9360 
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmar
.D&article_id=41553 
 
 
 (Why is webnews showing only two messages from this in the thread view, 
 even when viewing the message?)
 
 2. Denying responsibility for his
 own slip-ups.  For example, marking what's left of
 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=327
 
 INVALID despite this being due to an obvious mistake he made while 
 updating the spec, as well as violating the design of D.  No doubt there 
 are other instances, but I can't seem to think of them at the moment.
 
 
 3. Otherwise hitting the INVALID 'button' without properly analysing 
 things, meaning that it becomes necessary to reopen.
 
 
 4. Implementing his own ideas but keeping even constructive criticism - 
 let alone implementation - of other people's ideas to a minimum.
 
 
 5. Implementing new features when he should be concentrating on getting 
 things working properly.
 
 
 6. Postponing indefinitely, for no apparent reason, folding in fixes 
 people have gone to all the trouble to write.
 
 
 7. Not using a spellchecker.
 
 
 8. Apparently never learning from the spelling corrections we keep 
 giving him.
 
 (Please forgive me if you _have_ since heeded the advice in
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=631
 )
 
 
 More contributions to this list would be more than welcome!
 
 Stewart.

Tyro <nospam home.com> writes:

Stewart! Your abilities obviously supersede those of Walters;
therefore, it strikes me as a complete waste of valuable resources
to lurk in the shadows of Walter while depriving the computer
society of your vastly superior intellect and ingenuity!

You have got to be kidding me! You act as though the man owes you
something, but contrary to your misguided beliefs, he most
certainly does not. I would suggest that if you can do better, as
you have demonstrated on so many occasions, then waste no more
time here and embark immediately to doing just that.

You make me sick!

Andrew Edwards

Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:

You know the difference between you and Walter?

You fail.

Walter does not.

Period.

Alex.

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 

Mutiny???

A mere 360 hours before D 1.0!!!!

I choose to think you are joking.

"ideage" <lsina 126.com> writes:

Stewart make mistake possible,but help our keep improving D.
If the habits exists,correction it,else encourage everybody.

Last, More contributions to this list would be more than welcome!

ideage 

Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 

For the most part, Bilbo Baggins. I can't think of a more annoying 
hobbit of Walter's !


--
Tomasz Stachowiak

Pragma <ericanderton yahoo.removeme.com> writes:

Tom S wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 

 
 For the most part, Bilbo Baggins. I can't think of a more annoying 
 hobbit of Walter's !

Did you say "Bilbo Baggins"?  In that case, here's a follow-up to a much 
needed dose of levity in this thread:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1189977381292772054

(Personally, I think Samwise is *much* more annoying than Bilbo.)

-- 
- EricAnderton at yahoo

rm <roel.mathys gmail.com> writes:

I don't know what you are trying to proof. But concerning Walter you've 
proven nothing. I don't even know whether there is at least some truth 
in statements. And I won't bother reading them, the title sets the tone.

If this were a joke, April 1st is a long way off. You've proven to have 
a terrible sense of humor.

If this is serious, could you please give me your father's phone number. 
You really deserve a whipping.

Roel

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

rm wrote:
 I don't know what you are trying to proof. But concerning Walter you've 
 proven nothing. I don't even know whether there is at least some truth 
 in statements. And I won't bother reading them, the title sets the tone.

<snip>

Why did you bother posting that comment then?

Stewart.

Brad Anderson <brad dsource.org> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us.

Stewart,

I look forward to using your uber-perfect, properly-spelled, on-time,
under-budget, please-everyone programming language.  You can call it E.

But for crissakes, it's been twenty seconds since I've typed the above
paragraph.  Where the hell is it?  And why did you do X on the Y thingie?
Pfft.  You call yourself a language designer?  Where is your docs site, and
why is it incomplete?  Haven't cloned yourself yet?  C'mon, I don't have all
day...

BA

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Brad Anderson wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us.

 
 Stewart,
 
 I look forward to using your uber-perfect, properly-spelled, on-time,
 under-budget, please-everyone programming language. 

I think that just may be possible, for _realistic_ values of "on-time".

 You can call it E.

<snip>

Is it just rumours, or is the name E already taken?

Stewart.

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:elvmdi$1t5g$1 digitaldaemon.com...

While I agree that Walter _does_ dodge issues well and often, I usually find 
myself cringing more reading your posts than Walter's.  You're so full of 
yourself, you're going to have to get some buckets to catch the excess. 

Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:elvmdi$1t5g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 While I agree that Walter _does_ dodge issues well and often, I usually find 
 myself cringing more reading your posts than Walter's.  You're so full of 
 yourself, you're going to have to get some buckets to catch the excess. 
 
 

"You're so full of yourself, you're going to have to get some buckets to 
catch the excess."

That phrase is brilliant.

I have no further comment, I just think that phrase is brilliant :P

  - Gregor Richards

Kenny Bentley <seriousmoose yahoo.com> writes:

I have been using D for over a year now (maybe 2), some in commercial projects
and
some not in commercial projects. I think the release schedule that Walter
maintains is pretty impressive. Honestly I don't know how he stays so focused on
the language. I quickly tire out on things I'm working on if I work too much on
it.

Sure I think every programmer has annoying habits. (in fact, one of my annoying
habits is that I insist on using a language -- D -- which makes it difficult for
us to hire more programmers.) I have other annoying habits too, like deleting
other programmers code because I didn't like how it looked, or saying the 
project
will be done in 1 day and it takes me a week... oh well... no one is perfect.

Of all of the ideas you posted, I think that the only one that has validity is
the
not integrating patches others have written. He does from time to time, but not
always, and I understand why too... I have idiot programmers that I work with,
and
I LOATHE when they have a new patch for me to integrate, because they never get
my
formatting correct, they leave retarded comments ("this is the x variable!!!")
and
generally cruft up my code... The thing that pisses me off the most is when they
use isFriend when I'm using is_friend... or they even go so far as to write it
in
spanish esAmigo. I don't integrate that crap no matter what they say... I
rewrite
it, and when I rewrite it, I often find they implemented it quickly and didn't
think about the future of the feature and it usually has bugs... I don't know if
that's the case for walter, but I understand completely.

Walter is one man though, so he may start integrating more patches in the future
as the language grows. It's hard for me to lose control of something I wrote
over
90% of, and I'm sure walter feels the same way -- so I'm sure it will be on his
own time he integrates the patches.

Just thought I'd throw my ideas out there. I really enjoy the language of D,
and I
didn't really get to express my gratitude much other ways...

Thanks Walter, I've loved almost every bit of D so far, and it's definitely my
preferred language.

Kenny Bentley

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Thank you for being the first to take my post seriously.

Kenny Bentley wrote:
 I have been using D for over a year now (maybe 2), some in commercial 
 projects and some not in commercial projects. I think the release 
 schedule that Walter maintains is pretty impressive. Honestly I don't 
 know how he stays so focused on the language. I quickly tire out on 
 things I'm working on if I work too much on it.

Indeed.  I lose count of the projects I've tired of in my time and not 
got back into for a while.

 Sure I think every programmer has annoying habits. (in fact, one of 
 my annoying habits is that I insist on using a language -- D -- which 
 makes it difficult for us to hire more programmers.)

Does your company provide on-the-job training?  What are your entry 
requirements?

 I have other annoying habits too, like deleting other programmers 
 code because I didn't like how it looked, or saying the  project will 
 be done in 1 day and it takes me a week... oh well... no one is 
 perfect.

Indeed.  But sometimes people are just careless.  While some of my 
points may well be just human error, I'm quite sure some of the habits 
are kickable with not too much effort.

 Of all of the ideas you posted, I think that the only one that has 
 validity is the not integrating patches others have written. He does 
 from time to time, but not always, and I understand why too... I have 
 idiot programmers that I work with, and I LOATHE when they have a new 
 patch for me to integrate, because they never get my formatting 
 correct, they leave retarded comments ("this is the x variable!!!") 
 and generally cruft up my code...

Yes, some people do write silly comments.  During my PhD I found 
something like this in the Fortran code used by my department:

#ifdef PARALLEL
! INITIALIZE MPI IF 'PARALLEL' HAS BEEN DEFINED
     CALL INITIALIZE_MPI
#endif

 The thing that pisses me off the most is when they use isFriend when 
 I'm using is_friend... or they even go so far as to write it in 
 spanish esAmigo. I don't integrate that crap no matter what they 
 say... I rewrite it, and when I rewrite it, I often find they 
 implemented it quickly and didn't think about the future of the 
 feature and it usually has bugs... I don't know if that's the case 
 for walter, but I understand completely.

But do you ever look at the code they write to see if they've got _good_ 
ideas on how to implement it?

 Walter is one man though, so he may start integrating more patches in 
 the future as the language grows. It's hard for me to lose control of 
 something I wrote over 90% of, and I'm sure walter feels the same way 
 -- so I'm sure it will be on his own time he integrates the patches.

Being in control doesn't have to mean doing it practically on your own. 
   You don't need too many cooks to spoil the broth - too few cooks work 
just as well.

 Just thought I'd throw my ideas out there. I really enjoy the 
 language of D, and I didn't really get to express my gratitude much 
 other ways...
 
 Thanks Walter, I've loved almost every bit of D so far, and it's 
 definitely my preferred language.

Same here.  It's just those odd bits of it that stick out like sore thumbs.

Stewart.

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

Hmm...

I'm guessing Stewart had a bad day, and a recent response by Walter was  
the last straw.  That has happened before, you know :). It's just never  
been stated so starkly and vehemently as in this new thread; although I'm  
sure that if people were honest with themselves, they would admit that  
they have had the same thoughts before.  If Stewart had embedded such  
comments in a long tortuos thread of agonizing head-banging, I believe his  
statements would have been almost tolerated.

Hmm... something strange about this.

Also, the statement was alarmingly out of place in terms of timing. I felt  
like I'd been slapped in the face when I read it.  For the most part, this  
community has been very excited with the current momentum of Walter's  
work.  You can feel it: the energy is there.  While there is never really  
a good time for a post like Stewarts, I think this was particularly  
ill-timed.

Hmmm... some ulterior motive?

And the last bit about the spelling?  That's when I started to question  
what was really going on here.  Number one rule: you want to get people to  
support your opinion, DON'T BE PETTY ABOUT A PERSON'S SPELLING (especially  
when most people don't know what bad spelling is being referred to).  It  
really gets everyone else self-conscious and annoyed.  Stewart, you pushed  
everyone to side with Walter... :)

Hmmm... there's definitely something afoot!

Either that or your post was merely a "behavioral studies" experiment to  
see the predictability of response from a community whose leader has been  
directly attacked. Nooo, wait a minute....

Hmmm... Oh, wait, wait, wait.... I think I get it now! How very clever!  
Stewart, You are a genius!  You just succeeded in the grand unification of  
the D community before D 1.0. LOL!

-JJR

Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:

John Reimer wrote:
 [...]
 Either that or your post was merely a "behavioral studies" experiment to 
 see the predictability of response from a community whose leader has 
 been directly attacked. Nooo, wait a minute....
 
 Hmmm... Oh, wait, wait, wait.... I think I get it now! How very clever! 
 Stewart, You are a genius!  You just succeeded in the grand unification 
 of the D community before D 1.0. LOL!
 
 -JJR

LOL, yea. Hahaha. Great. ... but wait! Maybe Stewart IS Walter?!

Oh noes.


Whatever. This thread still says "I fail!!!111~", imho.

Alex

Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:

John Reimer wrote:
 Hmm...
 
 I'm guessing Stewart had a bad day, and a recent response by Walter was 
 the last straw.  That has happened before, you know :). It's just never 
 been stated so starkly and vehemently as in this new thread; although 
 I'm sure that if people were honest with themselves, they would admit 
 that they have had the same thoughts before.  If Stewart had embedded 
 such comments in a long tortuos thread of agonizing head-banging, I 
 believe his statements would have been almost tolerated.
 
 Hmm... something strange about this.
 
 Also, the statement was alarmingly out of place in terms of timing. I 
 felt like I'd been slapped in the face when I read it.  For the most 
 part, this community has been very excited with the current momentum of 
 Walter's work.  You can feel it: the energy is there.  While there is 
 never really a good time for a post like Stewarts, I think this was 
 particularly ill-timed.
 
 Hmmm... some ulterior motive?
 
 And the last bit about the spelling?  That's when I started to question 
 what was really going on here.  Number one rule: you want to get people 
 to support your opinion, DON'T BE PETTY ABOUT A PERSON'S SPELLING 
 (especially when most people don't know what bad spelling is being 
 referred to).  It really gets everyone else self-conscious and annoyed.  
 Stewart, you pushed everyone to side with Walter... :)
 
 Hmmm... there's definitely something afoot!
 
 Either that or your post was merely a "behavioral studies" experiment to 
 see the predictability of response from a community whose leader has 
 been directly attacked. Nooo, wait a minute....
 
 Hmmm... Oh, wait, wait, wait.... I think I get it now! How very clever! 
 Stewart, You are a genius!  You just succeeded in the grand unification 
 of the D community before D 1.0. LOL!
 
 -JJR

You, sir, *DELIVER*.

"nobody_" <spam spam.spam> writes:

 Hmmm... Oh, wait, wait, wait.... I think I get it now! How very clever!
 Stewart, You are a genius!  You just succeeded in the grand unification of 
 the D community before D 1.0. LOL!

 -JJR

Nobody finds this amusing! 

Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:

nobody_ wrote:
  > Nobody finds this amusing!

I needed a few seconds before realizing what you /actually/ meant, haha. :D

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

Just want to apologize about this "cute" reponse in that last post.  It  
doesn't sit well with me. It was a lame attempt at trying to lighten the  
situation.

A whole lot of us have identified with Stewarts points several times over  
in the past, so it's nothing new.

Despite this, I hope Walter keeps plowing away. He's done a great job so  
far, and I hope in the future we can continue to be a steady encouragement  
to him in the various ways we're good at.

At the same time, I think keeping him honest is part of that task...  
doggedly yet respectfully. :)

-JJR

Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 
 Here are some of my peeves, to start it off:
 
 
 1. Dodging issues, including important ones such as
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.
ugs&article_id=9360 
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmar
.D&article_id=41553 
 
 
 (Why is webnews showing only two messages from this in the thread view, 
 even when viewing the message?)
 
 2. Denying responsibility for his
 own slip-ups.  For example, marking what's left of
 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=327
 
 INVALID despite this being due to an obvious mistake he made while 
 updating the spec, as well as violating the design of D.  No doubt there 
 are other instances, but I can't seem to think of them at the moment.
 
 
 3. Otherwise hitting the INVALID 'button' without properly analysing 
 things, meaning that it becomes necessary to reopen.
 
 
 4. Implementing his own ideas but keeping even constructive criticism - 
 let alone implementation - of other people's ideas to a minimum.
 
 
 5. Implementing new features when he should be concentrating on getting 
 things working properly.
 
 
 6. Postponing indefinitely, for no apparent reason, folding in fixes 
 people have gone to all the trouble to write.
 
 
 7. Not using a spellchecker.
 
 
 8. Apparently never learning from the spelling corrections we keep 
 giving him.
 
 (Please forgive me if you _have_ since heeded the advice in
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=631
 )
 
 
 More contributions to this list would be more than welcome!
 
 Stewart.

While I told myself I wasn't going to go here, I am.

I think the idea behind this post is that since we have a one man 
development organization, we could improve D as a whole by improving the 
man. This is simply ridiculous. Think about what you are saying Stewart. 
You're basically asking a stranger to change himself (presumably to 
conform to your idea of better) because it would (again presumably) have 
a good effect on the product he creates.

Asking these sort of things of an *organization* that releases a product 
is reasonable, as the *organization* has the ability to adapt as an 
organization of multiple people which has a character independent of its 
parts. So asking for better documentation, a more intimate relationship 
with its clients, or any other things makes sense.

But for you, the consumer of the product of a one man team, to ask that 
person to change the very personal "bad habits" of his individual nature 
is absurd.

As others have pointed out, you don't flipping /pay/ Walter *anything*. 
He can do whatever he damn well pleases so, yes, he may or may not 
exhibit characteristics which you would change, he is not beholden to 
you or any of us to change himself to suit your idea of perfect.

Once and only when you become Walter's client, then you may act within 
your prerogative as a paying customer. However, were I to have you as a 
client and you came to my house (or my forum) and started to tell me how 
to write my code, live my life, and relate to people, I would (depending 
on my mood) politely show you the door, get my gun, and/or cancel your 
account.

Think before you speak.

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 
 Here are some of my peeves, to start it off:

 
 I think the idea behind this post is that since we have a one man 
 development organization, we could improve D as a whole by improving the 
 man. This is simply ridiculous. Think about what you are saying Stewart. 
 You're basically asking a stranger to change himself (presumably to 
 conform to your idea of better) because it would (again presumably) have 
 a good effect on the product he creates.

First Derek, now Stewart. The next person who starts brewing peeves 
about Walter should remember this: we are here now, not only because of 
what Walter is in good, but also precisely because of what Walter is in bad.

The best thing to do is to think about the above till you understand it.

Such understanding will make peeves mysteriously shrink, and make you 
feel better and healthier. Not to mention, it'll make you stop beating 
your wife and the kid next door.

Derek Parnell <derek nomail.afraid.org> writes:

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:37:00 +0200, Georg Wrede wrote:

 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 
 Here are some of my peeves, to start it off:

 
 I think the idea behind this post is that since we have a one man 
 development organization, we could improve D as a whole by improving the 
 man. This is simply ridiculous. Think about what you are saying Stewart. 
 You're basically asking a stranger to change himself (presumably to 
 conform to your idea of better) because it would (again presumably) have 
 a good effect on the product he creates.

 
 First Derek, now Stewart. 

I was not the first. I'm pretty sure there has been a number of people
before me who has decided to leave DigitalMars in peace for now. I suspect
this list would include Matthew Wilson and Arcane Jill at least.

 The next person who starts brewing peeves 
 about Walter should remember this: we are here now, not only because of 
 what Walter is in good, but also precisely because of what Walter is in bad.
 
 The best thing to do is to think about the above till you understand it.

That statement seems to imply that things (D related) can't get better so
we should just accept the status quo.

There is no argument that DigitalMars is run by a brilliant person and the
quality and quantity of its output is vastly superior to most everyone
else's. However, I think it can still be improved. I admit that history has
shown that I'm unable to assist in improving DigitalMars D, but that need
not stop other people from attempting it.

I also believe that DigitalMars could do with a few Public Relations
lessons as it sometimes appears to be aggravating (if not belligerent),
instead of appearing to be the truly benevolent dictator that we all need.

I still live in hope that the interaction between the D community and
DigitalMars will improve the D language, both by removing the current
mistakes in its definition and implementation, and by adding truly useful
features. I would have liked to think that I could be a part of this
activity, but I don't think I'm up to the task anymore.

 Such understanding will make peeves mysteriously shrink, and make you 
 feel better and healthier. Not to mention, it'll make you stop beating 
 your wife and the kid next door.

I assume that was an attempt at a joke, and you didn't actually *try* to
libel me by writing that offensive falsehood.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"
18/12/2006 12:04:10 PM

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:37:00 +0200, Georg Wrede wrote:
The next person who starts brewing peeves 
about Walter should remember this: we are here now, not only because of 
what Walter is in good, but also precisely because of what Walter is in bad.

The best thing to do is to think about the above till you understand it.

 
 That statement seems to imply that things (D related) can't get better so
 we should just accept the status quo.

The pace at which D has been moving is unbelievable. If Walter 
additionally did everything folks here ask, the pace would become a crawl.

Such understanding will make peeves mysteriously shrink, and make you 
feel better and healthier. Not to mention, it'll make you stop beating 
your wife and the kid next door.

 
 I assume that was an attempt at a joke, and you didn't actually *try* to
 libel me by writing that offensive falsehood.

First, it was addressed to the _next_ potential peever. Second, working 
on it till one understands will improve one's own being. Third, the last 
sentence was (admittedly a strongly formulated) reminder to check if 
one's problems are not just related to D, since aggression on one venue 
often has its roots elsewhere.

Derek Parnell <derek nomail.afraid.org> writes:

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:25:08 +0200, Georg Wrede wrote:

Such understanding will make peeves mysteriously shrink, and make you 
feel better and healthier. Not to mention, it'll make you stop beating 
your wife and the kid next door.

 
 I assume that was an attempt at a joke, and you didn't actually *try* to
 libel me by writing that offensive falsehood.

 
 First, it was addressed to the _next_ potential peever. Second, working 
 on it till one understands will improve one's own being. Third, the last 
 sentence was (admittedly a strongly formulated) reminder to check if 
 one's problems are not just related to D, since aggression on one venue 
 often has its roots elsewhere.

And you expect that by publicly implying that I'm generally aggressive is
helpful? I don't need that. 

-- 
Derek
18/12/2006 3:16:55 PM

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Derek Parnell wrote:
 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:25:08 +0200, Georg Wrede wrote:
 
 
Such understanding will make peeves mysteriously shrink, and make you 
feel better and healthier. Not to mention, it'll make you stop beating 
your wife and the kid next door.

I assume that was an attempt at a joke, and you didn't actually *try* to
libel me by writing that offensive falsehood.

First, it was addressed to the _next_ potential peever. Second, working 
on it till one understands will improve one's own being. Third, the last 
sentence was (admittedly a strongly formulated) reminder to check if 
one's problems are not just related to D, since aggression on one venue 
often has its roots elsewhere.

 
 And you expect that by publicly implying that I'm generally aggressive is
 helpful? I don't need that. 

No, Derek, I did not.

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

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:21:23 -0800, Derek Parnell  
<derek nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:25:08 +0200, Georg Wrede wrote:

 Such understanding will make peeves mysteriously shrink, and make you
 feel better and healthier. Not to mention, it'll make you stop beating
 your wife and the kid next door.

 I assume that was an attempt at a joke, and you didn't actually *try*  
 to
 libel me by writing that offensive falsehood.

 First, it was addressed to the _next_ potential peever. Second, working
 on it till one understands will improve one's own being. Third, the last
 sentence was (admittedly a strongly formulated) reminder to check if
 one's problems are not just related to D, since aggression on one venue
 often has its roots elsewhere.

 And you expect that by publicly implying that I'm generally aggressive is
 helpful? I don't need that.


Guys? Peace?

Derek, you're most certainly not the only "other" one that's been annoyed  
with Walter's habits.  Georg, you did bring up a sore spot in your first  
post by mentioning Derek.  I found it a little confusing until you  
clarified yourself in the next post -- especially the wife and kid part.   
I know you both are respectable fellows. Can you please forgive and forget?

I think all this thread has shown is that, like it or not, we are all  
susceptable to folly now and again.  So now not even Walter has to feel  
singled out. :)

Yes, Walter's faults do play an important role in the D sega; yes, the bad  
and good have brought D to where it is now. But, the long and short of it  
is that Walter could not have succeeded without a community of people --  
and silent experts, no less -- pounding on him over and over.  Without  
that community, D is nothing.  As marvelously determined as Walter is, he  
couldn't have done it alone and still cannot.  It's a symbiotic  
relationship, no less.  Patting Walter on the back now and again is a nice  
gesture and a worthy one, but please realize that his reward is built in.   
If D becomes everywhere prevalent, which will be the more satisfying to  
Walter: the "Thankyou Walter's" and "Your a smart chap's" or the mere  
knowledge that he designed a massively successful language?

You see? The reward and motivation are built in.  Not to say he doesn't  
deserve a "thanyou" often, but I think we can safely bet that the reward  
is in the result.

The best we can hope for is that D will succeed despite these faults, that  
the infatiguely pounding process continues with a modicum of grace, and  
that D continues to blossom as result of that refining process.

-JJR

janderson <askme me.com> writes:

Rant,

All these seem petty to me, like complaining about someones formating 
style.  If its useful then that's 100% better then not having it.

Ok, maybe slightly off topic:

Just my opinion,
Knew one guy who spent a week reformatting (no design patterns just tabs 
and naming conversions) everyone else code, and how did that help the 
project?  As a further frustration some other coder who decided that his 
formating style was superior so re-did the entire code style again a 
month later.  While these programmers where obviously not professional I 
wonder how far the project would have got if their time had actually 
been spend fixing bugs or adding features.

Its all about making efficient use of ones time. Spending hours browsing 
fixing typos is not a good use of time.  And it won't save much time in 
the future (unlike good conventions on code design).  Also who knows 
when the page will completely change.  Users who spot things like 
spelling mistakes should report them, and Walter can get to them when 
he's working on that page.

Now playing devils advocate now, people can be petty, and unfortunately 
  D needs every user it can get.  I find this gen is strong with 
programmers.  Therefore the quality of the D website (spelling ect...) 
can turn these people types away.

-Joel

BCS <BCS pathilink.com> writes:

janderson wrote:
 Knew one guy who spent a week reformatting (no design patterns just tabs 
 and naming conversions) everyone else code, and how did that help the 
 project?  As a further frustration some other coder who decided that his 
 formating style was superior so re-did the entire code style again a 
 month later.

The only way to end the formatting wars is to make a language that only 
has one way it can be formatted and make that way so horrendously ugly 
(no whitespace what so ever) that no one will ever look at code without 
reformatting it first. That way everyone will be forced to use automatic 
reformatting tools and everyone can get it formated the way they like. 
If you can't please everyone, drive them all nuts!

*Thank you* Walter for not being me!!!!!

p.s. I'm Joking

=?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= <12tkvvb02 sneakemail.com> writes:

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:13:29 -0800, BCS wrote:

Or use an editor which auto format the code.

 janderson wrote:
 Knew one guy who spent a week reformatting (no design patterns just tabs 
 and naming conversions) everyone else code, and how did that help the 
 project?  As a further frustration some other coder who decided that his 
 formating style was superior so re-did the entire code style again a 
 month later.

 
 The only way to end the formatting wars is to make a language that only 
 has one way it can be formatted and make that way so horrendously ugly 
 (no whitespace what so ever) that no one will ever look at code without 
 reformatting it first. That way everyone will be forced to use automatic 
 reformatting tools and everyone can get it formated the way they like. 
 If you can't please everyone, drive them all nuts!
 
 *Thank you* Walter for not being me!!!!!
 
 p.s. I'm Joking

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Knud Sørensen wrote:
 On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:13:29 -0800, BCS wrote:
 
 Or use an editor which auto format the code.

<snip top of upside-down reply>

Wouldn't that be an example of an automatic reformatting tool?

Stewart.

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

BCS wrote:
 janderson wrote:
 Knew one guy who spent a week reformatting (no design patterns just 
 tabs and naming conversions) everyone else code, and how did that help 
 the project?  As a further frustration some other coder who decided 
 that his formating style was superior so re-did the entire code style 
 again a month later.

 
 The only way to end the formatting wars is to make a language that only 
 has one way it can be formatted and make that way so horrendously ugly 
 (no whitespace what so ever) 
that no one will ever look at code without
 reformatting it first.

Not necessarily - the 'whitespace' programming language is another 
option. Cleanest-looking source code I've ever seen. <g>

%u <rko test.com> writes:

please do not answer these posts or any other post in this direction anymore. do
not let the original author succeed, - having walter and all those good people
with constructive good ideas fail to create a super new language.
things are going so well, - fixing and incorporating new features.

thanx walter - keep on going!

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

I disagree.

I call what you've named "code review", but mainly to make all code 
consistent in style.  This is not only because consistency is very 
important, e.g. for grep even, but moreover for another reason.

It greatly helps you learn the code.

If you think these people were just changing spaces to tabs, or the 
other way around, they were obviously wasting their time - especially if 
that took a week!

But if they were using this time to learn the code (and not just a small 
tiny subsection of it like most developers) this is of much greater gain 
for them and the project in the long-run.  A week is a small price to 
pay, and will make the code and project better in the future by quite a lot.

For any long-term project, I'd much rather a developer I managed spent a 
week learning a code base than a week trying to fix (and most likely 
having difficulty fixing) bugs during the same time frame.

In my opinion.  I would hesitate to so quickly slug people who do code 
reviews and coding style reviews if you don't know the full purpose of 
them.  Assuming there was a greater purpose, which there at least should 
have been.

-[Unknown]


 Rant,
 
 All these seem petty to me, like complaining about someones formating 
 style.  If its useful then that's 100% better then not having it.
 
 Ok, maybe slightly off topic:
 
 Just my opinion,
 Knew one guy who spent a week reformatting (no design patterns just tabs 
 and naming conversions) everyone else code, and how did that help the 
 project?  As a further frustration some other coder who decided that his 
 formating style was superior so re-did the entire code style again a 
 month later.  While these programmers where obviously not professional I 
 wonder how far the project would have got if their time had actually 
 been spend fixing bugs or adding features.
 
 Its all about making efficient use of ones time. Spending hours browsing 
 fixing typos is not a good use of time.  And it won't save much time in 
 the future (unlike good conventions on code design).  Also who knows 
 when the page will completely change.  Users who spot things like 
 spelling mistakes should report them, and Walter can get to them when 
 he's working on that page.
 
 Now playing devils advocate now, people can be petty, and unfortunately 
  D needs every user it can get.  I find this gen is strong with 
 programmers.  Therefore the quality of the D website (spelling ect...) 
 can turn these people types away.
 
 -Joel

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

What is is with you people?  OK, so a few of you did start to take it
seriously in the end.  But still, what is all the joking about?

I intended this to be a serious, potentially constructive criticism of
Walter's way of operating.  The points I made generally have something
in common: they can be helped, at least to an extent, with a bit of effort.

The fact that Walter is only one person of course cannot be helped.
That he's decided to do it practically single-handedly is of course
another matter.  But he isn't totally ignoring other people's
contributions, so it isn't a matter of wanting to do it with no help at
all.  On this basis, there ought to be more implementation of both ideas
and fixes from users than there would be otherwise, as he doesn't have
the overhead of coordinating the efforts of his internal development team.

Moreover, by postponing certain things, he's actually creating more
overhead for himself.  See

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/960.html
(in particular, my first followup)

And to those bringing up the statement that we haven't paid for this 
product, in a sense we have.  We've paid with the time spent evaluating 
D and DMD, reporting bugs and offering suggestions.

Moreover, freedom of speech doesn't come at any price.  If somebody came 
back from town and reported that there was a lot of anti-social 
behaviour or something of that ilk going on, would you tell them to shut 
up because they haven't paid for the privilege of walking through town?

Stewart.

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 What is is with you people?  OK, so a few of you did start to take it
 seriously in the end.  But still, what is all the joking about?

Now is not the time for this. Wait till the 1.0 dust has settled, which 
would be about late February or early March.

 And to those bringing up the statement that we haven't paid for this 
 product, in a sense we have.  We've paid with the time spent evaluating 
 D and DMD, reporting bugs and offering suggestions.

This is Walter's language. Period.

If someone contributes, they understand that such contributions are 
considered only if or when it suits Walter.

If that doesn't suit some folks, they're free to go.

 Moreover, freedom of speech doesn't come at any price. 

Freedom of speech doesn't exist. It's a phrase mostly used in the U.S. I 
can't go tell the big guy he's ugly. If I do, he'll kick my teeth. On a 
banquet with G. Bush, you can't go tell him what you think of his 
foreign policy. If you do, secret service men will take you away.

Here you actually can try to raise mutiny, time after time. But most of 
us hope that you'd go create your own language empire and make your own 
rules of Free Speech there.

 If somebody came 
 back from town and reported that there was a lot of anti-social 
 behaviour or something of that ilk going on, would you tell them to shut 
 up because they haven't paid for the privilege of walking through town?

No. But I hope I could tell the anti-social one to either behave or go away.

Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 What is is with you people?  OK, so a few of you did start to take it
 seriously in the end.  But still, what is all the joking about?

There's a thing called 'tact', something of which you are severely 
deficient. Over the years I've been involved with D I've seen you make 
several tactless posts to this group, bitching when your issues aren't 
fixed in a new release, pushing Walter to look again at one point or 
another. There's a right way and a wrong way to say things. Titling a 
post "Walter's annoying habits" is quite the wrong way.

I suggest you fix your own annoying habits first. Learn some tact, how 
to be civil rather than insulting, how to make requests rather than 
demands. Then perhaps people will take you seriously instead of viewing 
you as a pompous windbag.

rm <roel.mathys gmail.com> writes:

Mike Parker wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 What is is with you people?  OK, so a few of you did start to take it
 seriously in the end.  But still, what is all the joking about?

 
 There's a thing called 'tact', something of which you are severely 
 deficient. Over the years I've been involved with D I've seen you make 
 several tactless posts to this group, bitching when your issues aren't 
 fixed in a new release, pushing Walter to look again at one point or 
 another. There's a right way and a wrong way to say things. Titling a 
 post "Walter's annoying habits" is quite the wrong way.
 
 I suggest you fix your own annoying habits first. Learn some tact, how 
 to be civil rather than insulting, how to make requests rather than 
 demands. Then perhaps people will take you seriously instead of viewing 
 you as a pompous windbag.

+1

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:emcr5k$6b2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 What is is with you people?  OK, so a few of you did start to take it
 seriously in the end.  But still, what is all the joking about?

Presentation!  Tact!  Have you any training in the social graces?

As John mentioned in another post, had this laundry list been worded in a 
less inflammatory fashion, I doubt you would have received the response that 
you have.  It's nitpicky, it's condescending, and it's really unnecessary in 
such a time in the language's development.  Everyone's excited about 1.0, 
and you come along with this big needle to pop everyone's bubble.

I'm not really one to hold a grudge against someone, though, as long as they 
don't do something extraordinarily stupid, so I'm willing to forget about 
this thread if you're willing to admit that maybe -- just _maybe_ -- you 
were a bit harsh at a really inopportune time. 

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
<snip>
 As John mentioned in another post, had this laundry list been worded in a 
 less inflammatory fashion, I doubt you would have received the response that 
 you have.  It's nitpicky, it's condescending, and it's really unnecessary in 
 such a time in the language's development.

So that I know for next time, how do you reckon my points could be put 
into a "less inflammatory fashion"?

 Everyone's excited about 1.0, and you come along with this big needle 
 to pop everyone's bubble.

<snip>

Not true.  I for one, Bruno for another, have been pushing all this time 
for 1.0 to wait until it's ready.

Stewart.

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:emgj1d$16pp$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 So that I know for next time, how do you reckon my points could be put 
 into a "less inflammatory fashion"?

Tact is something that you usually just have to pick up.

One thing I've noticed you do is using "us" and "we" to mean "me" and "I". 
"It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy _us_." 
"Why won't you tell _us_ why?"  It's a way of trying to make it sound like 
you're not alone, like more people support you than it seems.  The thing is, 
most of the time you _are_ posting alone, and it just comes across as 
presumptuous.  Just because these things annoy _you_, they don't necessarily 
annoy everyone else.  What, do you expect everyone else to just jump on the 
Walter-bashing bandwagon?

Another thing (at least on this list) is the spelling issue.  (Oh, and 
there's that 'we' again: "Apparently never learning from the spelling 
corrections _we_ keep
giving him.")  Is this really necessary?  And this gem, from bugzilla 631:

---------
Walter, please learn the correct spellings of these words!  Or if that's too
hard, at least unlearn the incorrect spellings!  (Even better, get yourself 
an
editor with a spellchecker!)
---------

Oh, wow, wow, wow.  Yeah, that's a REALLY nice way to say it.  Insult his 
intelligence and order him around!  Do you honestly think that this is a 
good way to effect change in this language?

Okay, let's keep going.  You latch onto minor issues that very few other 
people really care about and don't let them go.  opEquals returning bool vs. 
int?  How long has _that_ one been going?

You're a complete ass to newcomers who don't understand the way we do things 
around here.  Case in point:

http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=45445

(And there's that 'us' again: "Don't just tell us that something gives an 
error, tell _us_ _what the error is_!")

That's all I can think of for now.

 Not true.  I for one, Bruno for another, have been pushing all this time 
 for 1.0 to wait until it's ready.

And at the same time you've posted all kinds of "when is it time to freeze 
features for 1.0?" messages.  Walter has finally decided when he's frozen 
features for 1.0 -- now! -- and yet you criticize him for it.  Make up your 
mind. 

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:emgj1d$16pp$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 So that I know for next time, how do you reckon my points could be put 
 into a "less inflammatory fashion"?

 
 Tact is something that you usually just have to pick up.
 
 One thing I've noticed you do is using "us" and "we" to mean "me" and "I". 
 "It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy _us_." 
 "Why won't you tell _us_ why?"  It's a way of trying to make it sound like 
 you're not alone, like more people support you than it seems.  The thing is, 
 most of the time you _are_ posting alone, and it just comes across as 
 presumptuous.  Just because these things annoy _you_, they don't necessarily 
 annoy everyone else.  What, do you expect everyone else to just jump on the 
 Walter-bashing bandwagon?

True, they are things that annoy me, but to imply that I was the only 
one seemed silly.  Besides, it wouldn't make much sense to invite 
contributions from others to a list of things that annoy _me_.

<snip>
 Okay, let's keep going.  You latch onto minor issues that very few other 
 people really care about and don't let them go.  opEquals returning bool vs. 
 int?  How long has _that_ one been going?

Latching onto "minor" issues - is there anything wrong with that?
Not letting them go - my last comment on it was half a month ago, and to 
add good reasons for it to the subject seemed reasonable.

 You're a complete ass to newcomers who don't understand the way we do things 
 around here.  Case in point:
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=45445
 
 (And there's that 'us' again: "Don't just tell us that something gives an 
 error, tell _us_ _what the error is_!")

So you think the person who I was responding to should've told me and 
nobody else?

 That's all I can think of for now.
 
 Not true.  I for one, Bruno for another, have been pushing all this time 
 for 1.0 to wait until it's ready.

 
 And at the same time you've posted all kinds of "when is it time to freeze 
 features for 1.0?" messages. 

Yes.  Freezing the features so that we can concentrate on getting the 
features we have properly specified and implemented.

 Walter has finally decided when he's frozen 
 features for 1.0 -- now! -- and yet you criticize him for it.  Make up your 
 mind. 

Please show me your evidence that I've seen any such statement from Walter.

Stewart.

Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:

We We We We We We --wtf!

Get a bit less ego-centric, maybe you'll find supporters then.

"Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 And to those bringing up the statement that we haven't paid for this 
 product, in a sense we have.  We've paid with the time spent evaluating 
 D and DMD, reporting bugs and offering suggestions.

"Nobody put a gun to yer head."

Andrei

rm <roel.mathys gmail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 And to those bringing up the statement that we haven't paid for this 
 product, in a sense we have.  We've paid with the time spent 
 evaluating D and DMD, reporting bugs and offering suggestions.

 
 "Nobody put a gun to yer head."
 
 Andrei

Better even, Stewart clearly made a judgmental error. He thought it 
would be 'C', but instead he got 'D'. And in real life, if you make 
errors, you have to pay.

Roel

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

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:20:22 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For  
Email) <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 And to those bringing up the statement that we haven't paid for this  
 product, in a sense we have.  We've paid with the time spent evaluating  
 D and DMD, reporting bugs and offering suggestions.

 "Nobody put a gun to yer head."

 Andrei


That statement (or quote) doesn't follow the reasoning presented.  Stewart  
wasn't arguing about whether community members are forced to help Walter  
or not.  He was merely countering the argument that states:  Walter does  
this for free, therefore we have no right to question him. In truth,  
Walter works on dmd for free and the community contributes to Walter's  
work for free, therefore both entities have invested in D and both  
entities share interest in the outcome.

Now forceful demands are another story... I don't think anyone can justify  
"putting the gun" to the designer's head to get him to do what they want  
him to do or get him to act as they expect him to act.  And, even so, it's  
most assuredly a fact that Walter would bulk even if a gun were put to his  
head to make him do something he didn't want to do. ;D

Now, Stewart, I don't think you caught the general drift of the topic  
enough to realize further comments on the subject would not likely garner  
more support.  If you had Asperger's syndrome, I guess we'd have to  
forgive you for lacking a general instinct for tact, sensitivity, and  
general social awareness.  But how is a community to respond to such  
persistance?  What do we call that?  I think even those with Asperger's  
would figure it out in the first round.  I think most here can forgive you  
anyway... but man, you've got me flummoxed on this one.

And no, that isn't a slam on people with Asperger's syndrome; I surely  
sympathize if they want my sympathy (which most claim to not want because  
it annoys them).  But I refuse to pussyfoot around such details.  Maybe I  
was insensitive in bringing it up in the first place? Ah man, never know  
until it's too late.

My point is, and perhaps Stewart is a sterling example, that the majority  
of people on this planet can lay claim to some obscure form of chronic  
insensitivity syndrome for various reasons... one reason being that they  
sincere don't care.  Stewart, I think, does care but appears to express  
his care by dabbing copious amounts of salt and vinegar in the fresh wound.

D is going 1.0.  For that I will celebrate.  That Walter got it this far  
intact is respectable.

-JJR

Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:

 I intended this to be a serious, potentially constructive
 criticism of Walter's way of operating.

It is a known phenomenon in organizations, especially charity
organizations, that all attributions to persons considered to be
leading characters of the organization will immediately bring up
all toadies of that organization against the attributor.

If such happens more than once one should consider departing that
organization ASAP and see the inevitable arrive from safe distance.

I have done this a long tome ago and as Andrei Alexandrescu pointed
out, that inevitable arrived already.


An unwritten rule of the open source community is not to spin off
unless there is no other chance.

When reading something like this
 create your own language empire and make your own
 rules of Free Speech there

from a veteran of the D language, there cannot be any doubt about
the conclusion.

Let's prepare to create a spin off from version 1.0 of the D
language. The working title should be "drokue", because the spinoff
should be a googable rogue to D.

"Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Manfred Nowak wrote:
 I intended this to be a serious, potentially constructive
 criticism of Walter's way of operating.

 
 It is a known phenomenon in organizations, especially charity
 organizations, that all attributions to persons considered to be
 leading characters of the organization will immediately bring up
 all toadies of that organization against the attributor.

Ionno. I might have a wrong or simplistic image of the situation, but to 
me things are simple: Walter is creating a product. He is motivated 
mainly by community building and approval. The community uses his 
product and provides useful feedback and suggestions for improvements. 
In doing so, they invest time and talent in the product to various degrees.

The question is, how much improvement comes from a specific member of 
the community, and what amount of entitlement should derive from that? I 
don't know much about the historical contributions that people have made 
to D, but my perception (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Walter 
holds an overwhelmingly high percent of the shares. In that case, it's 
hard to make the case that a community member can behave as if Walter 
owes him something.


Andrei

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

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:01:59 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For  
Email) <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 Manfred Nowak wrote:
 I intended this to be a serious, potentially constructive
 criticism of Walter's way of operating.

  It is a known phenomenon in organizations, especially charity
 organizations, that all attributions to persons considered to be
 leading characters of the organization will immediately bring up
 all toadies of that organization against the attributor.

 Ionno. I might have a wrong or simplistic image of the situation, but to  
 me things are simple: Walter is creating a product. He is motivated  
 mainly by community building and approval. The community uses his  
 product and provides useful feedback and suggestions for improvements.  
 In doing so, they invest time and talent in the product to various  
 degrees.

 The question is, how much improvement comes from a specific member of  
 the community, and what amount of entitlement should derive from that? I  
 don't know much about the historical contributions that people have made  
 to D, but my perception (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Walter  
 holds an overwhelmingly high percent of the shares. In that case, it's  
 hard to make the case that a community member can behave as if Walter  
 owes him something.


 Andrei


Andrei, I think you were responding to my thread, rather than Manfred's.  
I'm not completely sure.  The context just sounded like you were answering  
me. :(

I don't disagree with what you say here.  It's just that I found your  
one-liner in the previous post rather cheap ("no one put a gun to yer  
head"), and perhaps lacking background on D community drama.  Your post  
above elucidates your thoughts more fully, so I can appreciate that  
contribution better.

Nonetheless, there are people here that have made copious contributions to  
D.  Yes, Walter does own large entitlement to the work that has gone into  
the reference compiler and libraries, but that's mostly because he  
controls it and there's very little that people can do to make large  
contributions internally: they very likely would if they could.  Most  
contributions, therefore, are relegated to periphery tasks or identifying  
bugs (fixing them is not often accepted).  This has been the way Walter  
has preferred to run things, and for the most part people have accepted  
this.  Although every once in awhile flair-ups occur because members get  
frustrated when contributions are refused, rejected, forgotten, or ignored  
despite the same bugs being brought up repeatedly.  The reason for this is  
more often because Walter is already overloaded with work, and he cannot  
manage to review and implement all contribution.  This is not to say this  
Walter is absolutely horridly wrong in the way he runs things... it's more  
about posing the question on how efficiency might be improved concerning  
internal workload distribution and organization.  But repeatedly such  
suggestions have been rejected as infeasable (or simply ignored).

Meanwhile, some members have indeed contributed copious amounts of time,  
energy, and money to external facets: dsource.org, bugzilla, gdc, and  
several large projects consisting of many man-hours of work.  I want to  
point out that none of these areas constitute a small percentage of the D  
landscape or contribution pool.  Naturally, that doesn't justify any sort  
of rudeness on anybody's part, but it may explain some of the concern that  
important members show, now and again, in how D is managed and organized  
 from the inside:  any inability of Walter's to be able to keep up with  
work flow engenders frustration in those that would like to help in  
improving administration efficiency, division of labor and such; Walter is  
incredibly productive despite all this... but it's very easy for community  
members who have stuck around the last few years not to feel frustrated  
with the pace when there is a perception that, organizationally at least,  
the whole D movement could churn out fixes faster with the right  
arrangement.

Despite these dramas, most community members continue to cheer Walter on  
in good-natured fashion and continue to appreciate his incredible  
steadfastness and self-motivation.  Supporting him remains important in  
one way or another.  And seeing you arrive here from the C++ community  
publicly supporting Walter is also a good sign, I suppose. :)

Anyway, Walter is back, so we can stop talking about him now. ;)

All the best,

JJR

"Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

John Reimer wrote:
 I don't disagree with what you say here.  It's just that I found your 
 one-liner in the previous post rather cheap ("no one put a gun to yer 
 head"), and perhaps lacking background on D community drama.  Your post 
 above elucidates your thoughts more fully, so I can appreciate that 
 contribution better.

"Nobody put a gun to yer head" is a memorable quote from George 
Costanza. He was playing a bad boy in an attempt to seduce Elaine's 
coworker :o).

Thanks for the info. I guess it's hard to change the current state of 
affairs. Language design is quite a different kind of project, in which 
the undilluted vision of one person (or a very small core of people) is 
essential.


Andrei

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

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:25:04 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For  
Email) <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 John Reimer wrote:
 I don't disagree with what you say here.  It's just that I found your  
 one-liner in the previous post rather cheap ("no one put a gun to yer  
 head"), and perhaps lacking background on D community drama.  Your post  
 above elucidates your thoughts more fully, so I can appreciate that  
 contribution better.

 "Nobody put a gun to yer head" is a memorable quote from George  
 Costanza. He was playing a bad boy in an attempt to seduce Elaine's  
 coworker :o).


I assumed it was something of the sort. :)


 Thanks for the info. I guess it's hard to change the current state of  
 affairs. Language design is quite a different kind of project, in which  
 the undilluted vision of one person (or a very small core of people) is  
 essential.


Yes, that's the kind of statement that will hold the masses forever hostage
...until we become language designers ourselves. ;D

-JJR

Waldemar <waldemar wa-ba.com> writes:

 Nonetheless, there are people here that have made copious contributions to
 D.  Yes, Walter does own large entitlement to the work that has gone into
 the reference compiler and libraries, but that's mostly because he
 controls it and there's very little that people can do to make large
 contributions internally: they very likely would if they could.  Most
 contributions, therefore, are relegated to periphery tasks or identifying
 bugs (fixing them is not often accepted).  This has been the way Walter
 has preferred to run things, and for the most part people have accepted
 this.  Although every once in awhile flair-ups occur because members get
 frustrated when contributions are refused, rejected, forgotten, or ignored
 despite the same bugs being brought up repeatedly.  The reason for this is
 more often because Walter is already overloaded with work, and he cannot
 manage to review and implement all contribution.  This is not to say this
 Walter is absolutely horridly wrong in the way he runs things... it's more
 about posing the question on how efficiency might be improved concerning
 internal workload distribution and organization.  But repeatedly such
 suggestions have been rejected as infeasable (or simply ignored).


That's very informative and interesting.


From a user point of view (i.e. somebody that does not contribute to D
development
but is contemplating using the language), Walter's so called "annoying habits"
produced a pretty good product.  Therefore, I would call them good habits.  We
(ooops, here's the "we" but it is intended to mean "non specific future users of
D")  are getting a language that addresses many problems and shortcomings
encountered in existing tools, most prominently C/C++.  D is attractive in
certain
applications.

Alas, the innerworkings of the team that produces D are of major interest to the
users. Basically, what's need is a product that may be called mainstream.  D has
advanced to the point where it is quite usable and the language design and
implementation issues are no longer the top concern.  The top concern is how
mainstream it is.  Of course, D is not mainstream yet.  That's OK.  The question
is what is the roadmap to becoming one.  In other words, how do the developers
intend to bring the language to the level where it is accepted on par with
C++/Python/PHP, etc, etc.

Continuing on Walter's good habits, I can see the improvement every year, and
the
upcoming 1.0 is great news.  So far so good.  There is progress elsewhere as
well.
    Good, good.

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Waldemar wrote:
 Nonetheless, there are people here that have made copious 
 contributions to D.  Yes, Walter does own large entitlement to the 
 work that has gone into the reference compiler and libraries, but 
 that's mostly because he controls it and there's very little that 
 people can do to make large contributions internally: they very 
 likely would if they could.  Most contributions, therefore, are 
 relegated to periphery tasks or identifying bugs (fixing them is 
 not often accepted).  This has been the way Walter has preferred to 
 run things, and for the most part people have accepted this.  
 Although every once in awhile flair-ups occur because members get 
 frustrated when contributions are refused, rejected, forgotten, or 
 ignored despite the same bugs being brought up repeatedly.  The 
 reason for this is more often because Walter is already overloaded 
 with work, and he cannot manage to review and implement all 
 contribution.


This may be true.  However, the odd reminders of such things as fixes 
waiting to be folded in should at least work, when folding them in is 
sufficiently quick and straightforward that "just do it now and get it 
out of the way" is an efficient strategy.

<snip>
 From a user point of view (i.e. somebody that does not contribute to 
 D development but is contemplating using the language), Walter's so 
 called "annoying habits" produced a pretty good product.  Therefore, 
 I would call them good habits.  We (ooops, here's the "we" but it is 
 intended to mean "non specific future users of D")  are getting a 
 language that addresses many problems and shortcomings encountered in 
 existing tools, most prominently C/C++.  D is attractive in certain  
 applications.

An interesting concept.  Walter may easily have produced a pretty good 
product _despite_ these habits, and while some of them may have helped 
Walter to concentrate on improving the quality of the product, I still 
believe it would be better still if Walter did more to appreciate and 
make use of the work of this community.

 Alas, the innerworkings of the team that produces D are of major 
 interest to the users. Basically, what's need is a product that may 
 be called mainstream.  D has advanced to the point where it is quite 
 usable and the language design and implementation issues are no 
 longer the top concern.  The top concern is how mainstream it is.  Of 
 course, D is not mainstream yet.  That's OK.  The question is what is 
 the roadmap to becoming one.  In other words, how do the developers 
 intend to bring the language to the level where it is accepted on par 
 with C++/Python/PHP, etc, etc.

Yes, I agree that getting D into the mainstream in this sense would be a 
good idea.  When hopes of releasing 1.0 were a long way off, spreading 
the word around about it seemed a good idea.  I suppose it's partly my 
thinking that while the language was still expected to remain in a beta 
stage for the foreseeable future, its faults would have been forgivable 
by many.  I for one was optimistic back then that most of the faults 
would be dealt with before 1.0, and I suspect many people who come and 
find D would expect the same.

 Continuing on Walter's good habits, I can see the improvement every 
 year, and the upcoming 1.0 is great news.  So far so good.  There is 
 progress elsewhere as well. Good, good.

This little bit of optimism has got me thinking.  All too many times in 
my life, my glass has gone from half full to half empty.  But here, I 
think the problem is that the glass is getting bigger as more is being 
poured into it.

But I continue to have high hopes for D, and that the glass really is 
filling up now.

Stewart.

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
 Manfred Nowak wrote:
 I intended this to be a serious, potentially constructive
 criticism of Walter's way of operating.

 It is a known phenomenon in organizations, especially charity
 organizations, that all attributions to persons considered to be
 leading characters of the organization will immediately bring up
 all toadies of that organization against the attributor.

 
 Ionno. I might have a wrong or simplistic image of the situation, but to 
 me things are simple: Walter is creating a product. He is motivated 
 mainly by community building and approval. The community uses his 
 product and provides useful feedback and suggestions for improvements. 
 In doing so, they invest time and talent in the product to various degrees.
 
 The question is, how much improvement comes from a specific member of 
 the community, and what amount of entitlement should derive from that? I 
 don't know much about the historical contributions that people have made 
 to D, but my perception (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Walter 
 holds an overwhelmingly high percent of the shares. In that case, it's 
 hard to make the case that a community member can behave as if Walter 
 owes him something.
 
 
 Andrei

I think it is important to clearly note the following:

One thing is to require, ask, or simply *want* for Walter (or in the 
general case, any person in power of any project) to do X.

Another thing is to claim that *it is best for D* (be it the language, 
community, or whatever) that X be done.

Usually both positions come together, but it must be noted that whereas 
for the first one, the contributions/money/favors/etc. of the proponent 
person do matter, for the second case, they do not matter at all. That 
is, one might have not contributed to D *anything*, not even the 
simplest contribution forms like commenting, testing, bug 
reporting,etc., but still one can make a valid claim of what he/she 
thinks would be better to be done or not.
Of course that claim could be wrong (or simply be subjective opinion), 
and then there is a valid line of discussion of whether the claim is 
wrong/not-wrong/subjective, but what is not a valid discussion or 
commenting is stuff like "Walter's work is free, so you don't have any 
right to say what should be done". That is something I've seen before on 
D, and also often on other open source projects, where it is a prevalent 
position. And it is a fallacy . Indeed I do not have the right to 
*demand* that something be done in project Foo for which I have 
contributed nothing, but I can still very well posit on what would be 
better to be done or not.

Bottom-line: Steward Gordon may not have formulated his opinion in an 
appropriate way, but it surely is not the "Walter's work is free, so you 
don't have any right to..." that renders Steward's opinion (or any kind 
  of Walter criticizing) invalid.

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

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:

Stewart Gordon wrote:
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 
 Here are some of my peeves, to start it off:
 
 

The fact that some of Walter's habits are annoying is of no relevance. 
If you want to criticize Walter (and despite Walter's great job I *do 
think* there is room for criticizing), it should be done under the 
perspective of what is best for D. The fact that it annoys (and how much 
it annoys) is just an offtopic side-effect.

And for the record, I disagree with most of the faulty habits points you 
bring forward below. I'm not interested enough to discuss why.

 1. Dodging issues, including important ones such as
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D.
ugs&article_id=9360 
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmar
.D&article_id=41553 
 
 
 (Why is webnews showing only two messages from this in the thread view, 
 even when viewing the message?)
 
 2. Denying responsibility for his
 own slip-ups.  For example, marking what's left of
 
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=327
 
 INVALID despite this being due to an obvious mistake he made while 
 updating the spec, as well as violating the design of D.  No doubt there 
 are other instances, but I can't seem to think of them at the moment.
 
 
 3. Otherwise hitting the INVALID 'button' without properly analysing 
 things, meaning that it becomes necessary to reopen.
 
 
 4. Implementing his own ideas but keeping even constructive criticism - 
 let alone implementation - of other people's ideas to a minimum.
 
 
 5. Implementing new features when he should be concentrating on getting 
 things working properly.
 
 
 6. Postponing indefinitely, for no apparent reason, folding in fixes 
 people have gone to all the trouble to write.
 
 
 7. Not using a spellchecker.
 
 
 8. Apparently never learning from the spelling corrections we keep 
 giving him.
 
 (Please forgive me if you _have_ since heeded the advice in
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=631
 )
 
 
 More contributions to this list would be more than welcome!
 
 Stewart.


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

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

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:30:57 -0800, Bruno Medeiros  
<brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> wrote:

 The fact that some of Walter's habits are annoying is of no relevance.  
 If you want to criticize Walter (and despite Walter's great job I *do  
 think* there is room for criticizing), it should be done under the  
 perspective of what is best for D. The fact that it annoys (and how much  
 it annoys) is just an offtopic side-effect.

Good point, Bruno.  The focus was entirely incorrect.  Personal feelings  
really have no place in a critique.  People can be annoyed at almost  
anything that goes on. :)

-JJR

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 Stewart Gordon wrote:
 
 It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy us. 
 Here are some of my peeves, to start it off:

 
 The fact that some of Walter's habits are annoying is of no relevance. 
 If you want to criticize Walter (and despite Walter's great job I *do 
 think* there is room for criticizing), it should be done under the 
 perspective of what is best for D. The fact that it annoys (and how much 
 it annoys) is just an offtopic side-effect.

At least half of my points can indeed be considered as showing how we 
have far from the best for D.

 And for the record, I disagree with most of the faulty habits points you 
 bring forward below.

Do you mean you disagree that:
- they are faulty?
- they are habits?
- they are happening?
- something else?

 I'm not interested enough to discuss why.

<snip>

What was the point of quoting them then?

Stewart.