www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - State of D 2018 Survey

reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a few 
of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had put 
together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation to use 
in order to make decisions about where to expend development 
efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of approval, the survey 
questions were tweaked, and then it was ready to roll.

Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing 
it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the good 
stuff, here's the survey link:

https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

The blog:
https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
Feb 28
next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 13:41:56 Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a few
 of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had put
 together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation to use
 in order to make decisions about where to expend development
 efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of approval, the survey
 questions were tweaked, and then it was ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the good
 stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_su
 rvey/
The survery incorrectly uses the term nothrow instead of nothrow for question 12e. - Jonathan M Davis
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 07:22:41 Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 13:41:56 Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-

 announce wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a few
 of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had put
 together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation to use
 in order to make decisions about where to expend development
 efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of approval, the survey
 questions were tweaked, and then it was ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the good
 stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_
 su rvey/
The survery incorrectly uses the term nothrow instead of nothrow for question 12e.
And 12j misspelled "anything." - Jonathan M Davis
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrea Fontana <nospam example.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a 
 few of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had 
 put together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation 
 to use in order to make decisions about where to expend 
 development efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of 
 approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then it was 
 ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing 
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the 
 good stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
I wonder whether or not I should ask my (non-dlang) colleagues to take this survey as well.
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent reply bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a 
 few of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had 
 put together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation 
 to use in order to make decisions about where to expend 
 development efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of 
 approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then it was 
 ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing 
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the 
 good stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
If you ask about tabs vs spaces but not Emacs vs vi, nobody will take the language seriously. And why are there no questions about beards?
Feb 28
parent Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 14:53:23 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
 If you ask about tabs vs spaces but not Emacs vs vi, nobody 
 will take the language seriously. And why are there no 
 questions about beards?
I thought one "fun" question is enough. Maybe next year we get more creative ;-)
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent reply jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 [snip]
A few comments 1) How about an N/A or does not apply option? 2) The progress bar was weird, I went from 80% done to 57% done at one point.
Feb 28
parent Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 15:07:51 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:
 [snip]
A few comments 1) How about an N/A or does not apply option?
You can simply skip the questions. All questions are optional.
 2) The progress bar was weird, I went from 80% done to 57% done 
 at one point.
Yeah that's a Typeform bug. It's due to their logic jumps. I have reported this to their support a while ago already. The problem is that depending on what you answer you "jump" through the survey and see only the relevant questions (e.g. If you state that you have tried the DTour, you will be asked no further questions about it). I think the way the implemented this is that the only insert questions until the next logic jump + the permanent ones at the end, hence the jumps ...
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent reply JN <666total wp.pl> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
I think posting it to /r/programming might give it more views. I had no idea /r/d_language even existed.
Feb 28
parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 15:51:58 UTC, JN wrote:
 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
I think posting it to /r/programming might give it more views. I had no idea /r/d_language even existed.
The target audience for this isn't that broad, which is why I didn't share it on /r/programming.
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 01:41:56PM +0000, Mike Parker via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a few of
 the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had put together.
 He thought it would be useful for the Foundation to use in order to
 make decisions about where to expend development efforts. Eventually
 Andrei gave his stamp of approval, the survey questions were tweaked,
 and then it was ready to roll.
 
 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing it, but
 if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the good stuff,
 here's the survey link:
 
 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak
[...] I can't access the survey. It causes my browser to hang at 100% CPU because of some JS issues, and it doesn't work without JS. T -- Give a man a fish, and he eats once. Teach a man to fish, and he will sit forever.
Feb 28
parent reply Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 17:42:29 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 I can't access the survey.  It causes my browser to hang at 
 100% CPU because of some JS issues, and it doesn't work without 
 JS.
Not that's not a bug, but a feature (aka filter) ;-) No seriously, this shouldn't happen (TypeForm is the biggest company in this survey game). What browser do you use?
Feb 28
parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 05:56:29PM +0000, Seb via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 17:42:29 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 
 I can't access the survey.  It causes my browser to hang at 100% CPU
 because of some JS issues, and it doesn't work without JS.
Not that's not a bug, but a feature (aka filter) ;-)
LOL...
 No seriously, this shouldn't happen (TypeForm is the biggest company
 in this survey game).
I generally distrust large companies... but that's another topic. :-D
 What browser do you use?
Firefox 52.6.0-esr. T -- A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Cym13 <cpicard openmailbox.org> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a 
 few of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had 
 put together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation 
 to use in order to make decisions about where to expend 
 development efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of 
 approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then it was 
 ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing 
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the 
 good stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
If that were to be done again here are a few points that I'd improve: - there are many occurences of open questions where I entered a text only to find that the next fixed-choice question was about what I had written. I therefore feel like open questions should be asked as late as possible. - some questions introduce clear bias as they don't have a clear default exit path. For example for "How would you rate the importance of having documentation and error messages translated into your native language?" I feel like english speakers should have a way to exit cleanly as clearly they are both more numerous than the counter part (I think) and less likely to feel a need for supporting other languages. Similarly for the question "Would you or your company donate to the D Language Foundation (DLF)?" I feel like a "Maybe, I just don't feel like it right now" tag would have allowed distinguishing between people that actually don't have the money but would donate otherwise and people that aren't opposed to the idea but prefer donating to other projects for example. - I don't know if typeform allows it but sometimes having a link to the feature discussion or library reference would have been great. I didn't had to search many of them to actually know what the survey was talking about (which doesn't always indicate that I'm not concerned about the consequences of the change). That said, it was a very complete survey, thanks to everybody involved in putting this up! I hope it'll be of some use to the foundation.
Feb 28
next sibling parent reply Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 19:31:27 UTC, Cym13 wrote:
 If that were to be done again here are a few points that I'd 
 improve:

 - there are many occurences of open questions where I entered a 
 text only to find that the next fixed-choice question was about 
 what I had written. I therefore feel like open questions should 
 be asked as late as possible.
Ok. Understood. I tried to avoid this, but I obviously (partially) failed.
 - some questions introduce clear bias as they don't have a 
 clear default exit path.

 For example for "How would you rate the importance of having 
 documentation and error messages translated into your native 
 language?" I feel like english speakers should have a way to 
 exit cleanly as clearly they are both more numerous than the 
 counter part (I think) and less likely to feel a need for 
 supporting other languages.
 ...
Good point! There are a few questions that already have logic jumps (e.g. you get only asked about your experience with the DTour if you actually said that you used it), but I obviously missed that one. It's too late for that one now, but I will definitely keep this in mind for 2019. (also TypeForms so called "smart" jumps are severely limited, but you got to use what you have.)
 - I don't know if typeform allows it but sometimes having a 
 link to the feature discussion or library reference would have 
 been great. I didn't had to search many of them to actually 
 know what the survey was talking about (which doesn't always 
 indicate that I'm not concerned about the consequences of the 
 change).
TypeForm only allows a general description for questions which very limited Markdown (not even link support, only raw links). Anyhow, the feedback: "better descriptions" for questions is noted. Thanks!
 That said, it was a very complete survey, thanks to everybody 
 involved in putting this up! I hope it'll be of some use to the 
 foundation.
Thanks! I hope so too!
Feb 28
parent reply JN <666total wp.pl> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:01:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
 Thanks! I hope so too!
Is there some way to access the results without retaking the survey?
Feb 28
parent reply Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:24:00 UTC, JN wrote:
 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:01:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
 Thanks! I hope so too!
Is there some way to access the results without retaking the survey?
Yeah the link TypeForm generates at the end is permanent: https://dlang.typeform.com/report/H1GTak/PY9NhHkcBFG0t6ig though for some reason it doesn't show full-text answers (I have opened a support ticket for that a while ago). Anyhow, as Mike said we will look at all answers and do a summary once the survey concluded.
Feb 28
parent reply bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:37:36 UTC, Seb wrote:
 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:24:00 UTC, JN wrote:
 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:01:16 UTC, Seb wrote:
 Thanks! I hope so too!
Is there some way to access the results without retaking the survey?
Yeah the link TypeForm generates at the end is permanent: https://dlang.typeform.com/report/H1GTak/PY9NhHkcBFG0t6ig though for some reason it doesn't show full-text answers (I have opened a support ticket for that a while ago). Anyhow, as Mike said we will look at all answers and do a summary once the survey concluded.
Interesting results. 80% in favor for breaking changes. Maybe it's time to not care too much about making D better and leave old legacy stuff that stops D from evolving behind curtains.
Mar 01
next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
Just don't overlook the fact that people who fill out 30 minute surveys
right away after being told about them are a self-selected group of people
who apparently have way too much time on their hands.
Which also suggests they would likely also have more free time to go chase
down and fix breaks in their legacy code caused by new compilers.

--bb


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:19 PM, bauss via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:37:36 UTC, Seb wrote:

 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:24:00 UTC, JN wrote:

 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:01:16 UTC, Seb wrote:

 Thanks! I hope so too!
Is there some way to access the results without retaking the survey?
Yeah the link TypeForm generates at the end is permanent: https://dlang.typeform.com/report/H1GTak/PY9NhHkcBFG0t6ig though for some reason it doesn't show full-text answers (I have opened a support ticket for that a while ago). Anyhow, as Mike said we will look at all answers and do a summary once the survey concluded.
Interesting results. 80% in favor for breaking changes. Maybe it's time to not care too much about making D better and leave old legacy stuff that stops D from evolving behind curtains.
Mar 01
parent bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Thursday, 1 March 2018 at 21:24:29 UTC, Bill Baxter wrote:
 Just don't overlook the fact that people who fill out 30 minute 
 surveys
 right away after being told about them are a self-selected 
 group of people
 who apparently have way too much time on their hands.
 Which also suggests they would likely also have more free time 
 to go chase
 down and fix breaks in their legacy code caused by new 
 compilers.

 --bb
Nothing makes the old compilers disappear. If you have working code, keep using the compiler that compiled it. New features or breaking changes. Otherwise D will stop evolving, and unlike C++, will not have tons of legacy code to force people to continue to use it.
Mar 01
prev sibling next sibling parent Daniel Kozak <kozzi11 gmail.com> writes:
Ok, I have same feeling, but after trying to fill this survey with one of
my colleague, I have find out that it takes "only" 15 minutes to complete.
But still I thing almost everyone from our field is OK with filling surveys
anyway.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Bill Baxter via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 Just don't overlook the fact that people who fill out 30 minute surveys
 right away after being told about them are a self-selected group of people
 who apparently have way too much time on their hands.
 Which also suggests they would likely also have more free time to go chase
 down and fix breaks in their legacy code caused by new compilers.

 --bb


 On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:19 PM, bauss via Digitalmars-d-announce <
 digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:37:36 UTC, Seb wrote:

 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:24:00 UTC, JN wrote:

 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 20:01:16 UTC, Seb wrote:

 Thanks! I hope so too!
Is there some way to access the results without retaking the survey?
Yeah the link TypeForm generates at the end is permanent: https://dlang.typeform.com/report/H1GTak/PY9NhHkcBFG0t6ig though for some reason it doesn't show full-text answers (I have opened a support ticket for that a while ago). Anyhow, as Mike said we will look at all answers and do a summary once the survey concluded.
Interesting results. 80% in favor for breaking changes. Maybe it's time to not care too much about making D better and leave old legacy stuff that stops D from evolving behind curtains.
Mar 01
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Thursday, March 01, 2018 13:24:29 Bill Baxter via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
 Just don't overlook the fact that people who fill out 30 minute surveys
 right away after being told about them are a self-selected group of people
 who apparently have way too much time on their hands.
 Which also suggests they would likely also have more free time to go chase
 down and fix breaks in their legacy code caused by new compilers.
It's also the case that the folks who even see this survey are likely to be a fairly small percentage of the actual user base. So, while its results may be useful, they need to be viewed with that fact in mind. That being said, I think that it's a given that we need to make breaking changes at least occasionally. The question is more how big they can be and how we go about it. Some changes would clearly be far too large to be worth it, whereas others clearly pay for themselves. The harder question is the stuff in between. For instance, while we might not actually have a new operator if D were being redesigned from the ground up (Andrei has previously stated that it really should have just been a function in the standard library or runtime), that would be far too large a change with far too little benefit to be even vaguely worth it at this point. On the other hand, we _did_ change it so that switch statements don't have implicit fallthrough anymore, and that change was _very_ well received, because it caught bugs and it was a quick fix to update correct code that was then an error (it was probably also true that relatively little correct code had to be updated, but that's harder to measure). Each potential breaking change has to be weighed on its own, and the real question is how strongly we weight the pros vs the cons. We could choose to favor breaking code only when it's cleary _very_ benificial to do so, or we could choose to break code any time there's even a slight benefit to it. I think that it's pretty clear that the right choice is somewhere in between those two extremes, but it's not an easy question as to where it is. And as has been discussed before, we have folks clamoring for breaking changes and folks clamoring for nothing to ever break, and sometimes, they're exactly the same folks. :| - Jonathan M Davis
Mar 01
parent reply psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Thursday, 1 March 2018 at 21:49:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 That being said, I think that it's a given that we need to make 
 breaking changes at least occasionally. The question is more 
 how big they can be and how we go about it. Some changes would 
 clearly be far too large to be worth it, whereas others clearly 
 pay for themselves. The harder question is the stuff in between.

 ...
 - Jonathan M Davis
Personally. I think the D1..D2 transistion was great idea. I think D2..D3 should follow the same principle. i.e restrict breaking changes to major versions. People are always able to stay on the major branch that they need - there are no forced upgrades here - you choose which major branch works for you. The source code is all there for you, to do as you please. This is the only way to evolve - otherwise D will just become another convoluted piece of %3 f!, like C++. On the otherhand, I wish programming languages would just stop changing so often. The constant release cycles is just crazy! That's a sure sign that something is not right. And who wants to program in a langauge that is not right?? That's why I still like, still use, and typically still prefer .. C. Nobody dares change it ;-)
Mar 01
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:39:08AM +0000, psychoticRabbit via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
 On the otherhand, I wish programming languages would just stop
 changing so often.
[...] Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. :-P The day a language stops changing is the day it begins to die. T -- Life is unfair. Ask too much from it, and it may decide you don't deserve what you have now either.
Mar 01
parent reply psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 00:53:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:39:08AM +0000, psychoticRabbit via 
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
 On the otherhand, I wish programming languages would just stop 
 changing so often.
[...] Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. :-P The day a language stops changing is the day it begins to die. T
C will never die!!!! !! !!!!
Mar 01
parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:57:22AM +0000, psychoticRabbit via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 00:53:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:39:08AM +0000, psychoticRabbit via
 Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...]
 On the otherhand, I wish programming languages would just stop
 changing so often.
[...] Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. :-P The day a language stops changing is the day it begins to die.
[...]
 C will never die!!!!
[...] Because it has not stopped changing. To wit: K&R C (1978) C89 / C90 / ANSI C (1989-1990) The 1995 amendment to ANSI C (1995) C99 (1999) (Embedded C (2008)) C11 (2011) T -- "If you're arguing, you're losing." -- Mike Thomas
Mar 01
parent reply psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 01:19:53 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 Because it has not stopped changing.  To wit:

 	K&R C (1978)
 	C89 / C90 / ANSI C (1989-1990)
 	The 1995 amendment to ANSI C (1995)
 	C99 (1999)
 	(Embedded C (2008))
 	C11 (2011)


 T
btw. I never said 'stop changing', I said "I wish programming languages would just stop changing so often." And that last update to C, in 2011, was 7 years ago.. relative stability is a sure sign that something is right. constant, regular, change is a sure sign that something is wrong. And if stability were not the preferred state towards which things evolve, then the universe would be a very different place indeed.
Mar 01
parent reply psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 02:02:42 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
 btw. I never said 'stop changing', I said "I wish programming 
 languages would just stop changing so often."
I'd also argue, that languages that are relatively stable, are far 'safer' than languages that constantly change. So given that the world is so focused on developing a variety of so called 'safer' languages, with ever rapid, frequent, release cycles, the world would actually be alot 'safer' if everyone went back and programmed in C ;-)
Mar 01
parent reply barry.harris <bharris rumail.ru> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 02:34:23 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
 On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 02:02:42 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
 btw. I never said 'stop changing', I said "I wish programming 
 languages would just stop changing so often."
I'd also argue, that languages that are relatively stable, are far 'safer' than languages that constantly change. So given that the world is so focused on developing a variety of so called 'safer' languages, with ever rapid, frequent, release cycles, the world would actually be alot 'safer' if everyone went back and programmed in C ;-)
Sorry little rabbit, your are misguided in this belief. Back in day we all used C and this is the reason most "safer" languages exist today.
Mar 01
parent reply psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 03:57:25 UTC, barry.harris wrote:
 Sorry little rabbit, your are misguided in this belief. Back in 
 day we all used C and this is the reason most "safer" languages 
 exist today.
You can write pretty safe code in C these days, without too much trouble. We have the tooling and the knowledge to make that happen.. developed over decades - and both keep getting better, because the language is not subjected to a constant and frequent release cycle. Ironically, the demands on programmers to adapt to constant change, is actually making applications less safe. - and least, that's my thesis ;-) The real problem with using C these days (in some areas), is more to do with its limited abstraction power, not its lack of safety. And also C is frowned upon (and C++ too for that matter), cause most programmers are so lazy these days, and don't want to write code - but prefer to just 'link algorithms' that someone else wrote. I include myself in this - hence my interest in D ;-) Keep those algorithms coming!
Mar 01
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 04:38:24 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
 On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 03:57:25 UTC, barry.harris wrote:
 Sorry little rabbit, your are misguided in this belief. Back 
 in day we all used C and this is the reason most "safer" 
 languages exist today.
You can write pretty safe code in C these days, without too much trouble. We have the tooling and the knowledge to make that happen.. developed over decades - and both keep getting better, because the language is not subjected to a constant and frequent release cycle. Ironically, the demands on programmers to adapt to constant change, is actually making applications less safe. - and least, that's my thesis ;-) The real problem with using C these days (in some areas), is more to do with its limited abstraction power, not its lack of safety. And also C is frowned upon (and C++ too for that matter), cause most programmers are so lazy these days, and don't want to write code - but prefer to just 'link algorithms' that someone else wrote. I include myself in this - hence my interest in D ;-) Keep those algorithms coming!
Those tools exist since 1979, so C programmers have had quite some time to actually use them. "To encourage people to pay more attention to the official language rules, to detect legal but suspicious constructions, and to help find interface mismatches undetectable with simple mechanisms for separate compilation, Steve Johnson adapted his pcc compiler to produce lint [Johnson 79b], which scanned a set of files and remarked on dubious constructions." Dennis Ritchie, https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html Also, anyone that wasn't using safer systems programming languages before C got widespread outside UNIX, can spend some time educating themselves on BitSavers or Archive about all the systems outside AT&T that were developed in such languages since 1961. The first well known, Burroughs B5000, has kept being improved and is sold by Unisys as ClearPath nowadays. Or PL/8 used by IBM for doing RISC research, creating an compiler using an plugable architecture similar to what many think are LLVM ideas and the respective OS. They only switched to C, when they decided to bet on UNIX for going commercial with RISC. There are only two reasons we are stuck with C, until we get to radically change computer architectures, UNIX like OSes, and embedded developers that won't use anything else even at point gun. All the quantum computing research is using languages that don't have anything to do with C.
Mar 02
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
Whilst we are espousing opinions=E2=80=A6

On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 08:02 +0000, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 04:38:24 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
 You can write pretty safe code in C these days, without too=20
 much trouble. We have the tooling and the knowledge to make=20
 that happen.. developed over decades - and both keep getting=20
 better, because the language is not subjected to a constant and=20
 frequent release cycle.
You can write safe code in assembly language and even machine code, but do you want to? The same applies to C.
 Ironically, the demands on programmers to adapt to constant=20
 change, is actually making applications less safe. - and least,=20
 that's my thesis ;-)
=20
 The real problem with using C these days (in some areas), is=20
 more to do with its limited abstraction power, not its lack of=20
 safety.
The problem with C these days is that people still use it when they really should not. C has it's place, and writing applications is not that place.
 And also C is frowned upon (and C++ too for that matter), cause=20
 most programmers are so lazy these days, and don't want to=20
 write code - but prefer to just 'link algorithms' that someone=20
 else wrote.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Those people using C these days either have to use it because a modern language can't yet target their platform, or they are too lazy to change their toolchain and continue with C in the face of overwhelming evidence it is the wrong thing to do.
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20 There are only two reasons we are stuck with C, until we get to=20 radically change computer architectures, UNIX like OSes, and=20 embedded developers that won't use anything else even at point=20 gun. =20
C is a portable assembly language, it is not really a high level language. There are those who will not change and will use C till they drop dead. That is their problem. There are those who use C because the only other option is assembly language, so they make the right decision. This is an indicator that high-level language toolchain manufacturers have failed to port to their platform. I'll wager there are still a lot of 8051s out there. I'll also wager the C++ compilers for that target do not realise C++, but a subset that is worse than using C. Even after 14 years of improvement. It is going to be interesting what happens when Rust begins to have to toolchains to deal with microcontrollers. Hopefully though ARM cores dominate now, especially given the silicon area is reputedly smaller than 8051. I've been out of the smartcard arena for over a decade now, and yet I bet it is all still very much the same.
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
--=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 02
next sibling parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 10:21:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 […]

 There are those who use C because the only other option is 
 assembly language, so they make the right decision. This is an 
 indicator that high-level language toolchain manufacturers have 
 failed to port to their platform. I'll wager there are still a 
 lot of 8051s out there. I'll also wager the C++ compilers for 
 that target do not realise C++, but a subset that is worse than 
 using C. Even after 14 years of improvement.

 It is going to be interesting what happens when Rust begins to 
 have to toolchains to deal with microcontrollers. Hopefully 
 though ARM cores dominate now, especially given the silicon 
 area is reputedly smaller than 8051. I've been out of the 
 smartcard arena for over a decade now, and yet I bet it is all 
 still very much the same.
There are safer alternatives, (Pascal and Basic), but they suffer from the same stigma that has pushed them outside of the market, namely they aren't offered on the chip vendor SDK, thus requiring an additional purchase, which only a few bother with. http://turbo51.com/ https://www.mikroe.com/compilers
Mar 02
prev sibling parent reply psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 10:21:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 ...continue with C in the face of overwhelming evidence
 it is the wrong thing to do.
yeah, the health fanatics who promote their crap to goverments and insurance agencies, use very similar arguments about sugar, salt, alchohol, this and that.... when really, it's all about moderation, not prohibition (or increased taxes on things people say are bad). and science is so dodgy these days, that even scientific evidence requires evidence. c rules!
Mar 02
next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 11:16 +0000, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 10:21:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
=20
 ...continue with C in the face of overwhelming evidence
 it is the wrong thing to do.
=20 yeah, the health fanatics who promote their crap to goverments=20 and insurance agencies, use very similar arguments about sugar,=20 salt, alchohol, this and that.... =20 when really, it's all about moderation, not prohibition (or=20 increased taxes on things people say are bad).
You stick with your buffer overruns, I'll do my applications in D and Rust.
 and science is so dodgy these days, that even scientific evidence=20
 requires evidence.
Bollocks. Just because a certain section of USA society, and sadly some sections of UK society, either can't do science, or choose to badly report science, does make science dodgy. But that stray off topic for this list into the realms of philosophy of science.
 c rules!
If you want buffer overruns certainly. --=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 02
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 11:52 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
 report science, does make science dodgy. But that stray off topic for
[=E2=80=A6] s/does/does not/ Obviously. :-) --=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 02
parent reply psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:02:43 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 11:52 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
 […]
 report science, does make science dodgy. But that stray off 
 topic for
[…] s/does/does not/ Obviously. :-)
mmm...freudian slip?? I study science...and what's being taught to us .. is dodgy. and anyway, since when do D forum discussion stay on topic? C ruleZ! ..and D does too ;-) ... and I don't want to hear about Rust. So lets agree to never, ever mention that word...ever again.
Mar 02
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 12:16 +0000, psychoticRabbit via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:02:43 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 11:52 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
 report science, does make science dodgy. But that stray off=20
 topic for
=20 [=E2=80=A6] =20 s/does/does not/ =20 Obviously. :-)
=20 mmm...freudian slip??
:-)
 I study science...and what's being taught to us .. is dodgy.
So, one of: =E2=80=93 the teaching is bad; =E2=80=93 the learner is not up to it; or =E2=80=93 both. Science, in and of itself, cannot be dodgy. Yes there are debates to be had, cf. Popper, Kuhn, etc. but the foundation of science is hypotheses, experimentation, and reproducibility. It can be done badly or well by people, but it is not a dodgy thing.
 and anyway, since when do D forum discussion stay on topic?
Usually, but then an [OFF-TOPIC] marker gets added in the thread when a drift occurs.
 C ruleZ!
=20
 ..and D does too ;-)
=20
 ... and I don't want to hear about Rust.
 So lets agree to never, ever mention that word...ever again.
Perhaps you do not, but Rust, like Go, is getting traction in the world out there. Like COBOL, C will always be there, but its use will diminish rapidly. --=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 02
next sibling parent JN <666total wp.pl> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 13:05:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 Usually, but then an [OFF-TOPIC] marker gets added in the 
 thread when a drift occurs.
Which is pretty much meaningless when using the web client, because it has a linear non-threaded history by default :)
Mar 02
prev sibling parent psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 13:05:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 Science, in and of itself, cannot be dodgy.
science must involve humans, and humans are often dodgy.
 Yes there are debates to be had, cf. Popper, Kuhn, etc. but the 
 foundation of science is hypotheses, experimentation, and 
 reproducibility. It can be done badly or well by people, but it 
 is not a dodgy thing.
there is no science without humans - they are two sides of the one coin. If humans can be dodgy, so can science.
 Perhaps you do not, but Rust, like Go, is getting traction in 
 the world out there. Like COBOL, C will always be there, but 
 its use will diminish rapidly.
Only when hardware becomes significantly faster, will C begin to fade, as then the case for C diminishes. I do like the simplicity of Go - and then there are days when I just hate that simplicity. That R?s? thing...well...it is too odd for most people to embrace, I think It is worth keeping an eye on .NET - as Microsoft are very determined to make this a cross platform runtime, and programming in C# is just .. nice. And if I recall correctly, Java and .NET still dominate the employment opportunities, and as 'safety' is becoming even more and more important, I think that is likely to stay that way for a long time to come. So I think all these new languages will just be playgrounds for ideas, or become domain specific languages, while .NET and JAVA use will continue to increase.
Mar 02
prev sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 11:16:51 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
 On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 10:21:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 ...continue with C in the face of overwhelming evidence
 it is the wrong thing to do.
yeah, the health fanatics who promote their crap to goverments and insurance agencies, use very similar arguments about sugar, salt, alchohol, this and that.... when really, it's all about moderation, not prohibition (or increased taxes on things people say are bad). and science is so dodgy these days, that even scientific evidence requires evidence.
No, it is about costs and saving people lives. It is cheaper to prevent diseases than trying to cure them afterwards, specially chronic ones that cause people's death. Likewise, it is cheaper to prevent security exploits caused by memory corruption by not having them, instead of having to pay millions of dollars in compensation to everyone has was impacted by one.
 c rules!
Thanks to AT&T not being able to sell UNIX, giving it by a symbolic price for universities like Berkely, followed by a few startups like Sun and SGI basing their OS on it. Had AT&T been allowed to sell UNIX at the same price of VMS, OS/z and others, and C wouldn't rule anywhere. And if you like C so much, what are you doing in a safe systems programming language forum?
Mar 02
parent reply psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:20:31 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 And if you like C so much, what are you doing in a safe systems 
 programming language forum?
How safe is D.. i mean really ;-) and why do people ask me that question.. I don't get it. I program (or try to) in as many languages as my brain can handle ;-) (which oddly enough, seems to be stuck at about 7)
Mar 02
parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 01:59:15 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
 On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:20:31 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 And if you like C so much, what are you doing in a safe 
 systems programming language forum?
How safe is D.. i mean really ;-) and why do people ask me that question.. I don't get it. I program (or try to) in as many languages as my brain can handle ;-)
Basically I hope you have goals or some system to pick these.
 (which oddly enough, seems to be stuck at about 7)
O.T.: Which is a well known number when it comes to cognition. It’s usually 7+-2.
Mar 03
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 13:51 +0000, Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
 O.T.: Which is a well known number when it comes to cognition.=20
 It=E2=80=99s usually 7+-2.
A number that is often misunderstood, and misused. As in this case. http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/magical_number_seven.html --=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 03
parent reply Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 15:52:02 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 13:51 +0000, Dmitry Olshansky via 
 Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
 […]
 
 O.T.: Which is a well known number when it comes to cognition. 
 It’s usually 7+-2.
A number that is often misunderstood, and misused. As in this case. http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/magical_number_seven.html
Won’t load for me( Anyhow far as I can tell it is a measure of how many entities simultaniously you can hold in your attention, such objects in a picture frame. This doesn’t represent long-term memory or other capacities, which is likely the case here.
Mar 03
parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 16:06 +0000, Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 15:52:02 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
 http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/magical_number_seven.html
=20 Won=E2=80=99t load for me(
How annoying. Definitely works for me as they say. It's a 2007 chapter from an introduction to psychology, the first sensible link that came up via a DuckDuckGo search. There are a variety of other places to look. Here's another. https://www.simplypsychology.org/short-term-memory.html
 Anyhow far as I can tell it is a measure of how many entities=20
 simultaniously you can hold in your attention, such objects in a=20
 picture frame.
It's a 1956 paper by Miller that claims 7 is the magic number for short term memory, the number of chunks of stuff you can keep for a certain period. A chunk is not a defined thing such as characters or words, but they are examples. I am not sure what the experimental status is of this "theory", but I suspect no-one has disproved it as yet.
 This doesn=E2=80=99t represent long-term memory or other capacities,=20
 which is likely the case here.
Exactly. --=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 03
parent Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 16:59:56 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 16:06 +0000, Dmitry Olshansky via
DuckDuckGo search.
 It's a 1956 paper by Miller that claims 7 is the magic number 
 for short term memory, the number of chunks of stuff you can 
 keep for a certain period. A chunk is not a defined thing such 
 as characters or words, but they are examples.  I am not sure 
 what the experimental status is of this "theory", but I suspect 
 no-one has disproved it as yet.
I know people who indirectly proved that theory to be correct in many unexpected ways. In particular when people are asked to define “distant” or “hot” as a set of classes they usually settle for around 7 states and cannot distinguish finer ones. Same problem with colors, as in defining shades of the same color. All that said, the trick is that ~7 applies to any “thing” and thusly your capacity increases if you can “merge” things to a single entity or otherwise establish relations or laws, doing reduction on a number of entities. Likely composition is a sideeffect of this tendency and 7 is not exact number in any wat.
Mar 03
prev sibling parent reply Meta <jared771 gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 00:39:08 UTC, psychoticRabbit wrote:
 On Thursday, 1 March 2018 at 21:49:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:
 That being said, I think that it's a given that we need to 
 make breaking changes at least occasionally. The question is 
 more how big they can be and how we go about it. Some changes 
 would clearly be far too large to be worth it, whereas others 
 clearly pay for themselves. The harder question is the stuff 
 in between.

 ...
 - Jonathan M Davis
Personally. I think the D1..D2 transistion was great idea. I think D2..D3 should follow the same principle.
D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was either Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple occasions). A D2 -> D3 transition might generate a lot of publicity if done very carefully, but more than likely it would just put the nails in the coffin for good and destroy all the momentum D has built up over the past 3 years (I feel like 2015 was a big turning point where D finally got back on peoples' radars).
Mar 01
next sibling parent psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 02:35:46 UTC, Meta wrote:
 D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was 
 either Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple 
 occasions). A D2 -> D3 transition might generate a lot of 
 publicity if done very carefully, but more than likely it would 
 just put the nails in the coffin for good and destroy all the 
 momentum D has built up over the past 3 years (I feel like 2015 
 was a big turning point where D finally got back on peoples' 
 radars).
I've read a bit about that history, but really, sometimes you have to be agressive with change or just it won't come about. And I don't see how D2 could have come about without an agressive push for change. And it's unlikely that D would have died. Some people might have left (and probably did). But D is better because it's D2. Imagine promoting D1 to the world! D3 could be even better. (e.g. safe by default..just for starters). And I personally think all this ongoing integration with C and C++ is not ideal. It's creating a really complex beast, that has to be maintained indefinitely... by someone. So I'd like to see D3 dump all the compatibility crap ;-)
Mar 01
prev sibling next sibling parent Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 02:35:46 UTC, Meta wrote:
 D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was 
 either Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple 
 occasions).
This gets repeated over and over again, but I haven't actually seen any evidence for it. But even if it is true, I'd say it is just because they did it wrong. There never really was a D1->D2. There was just an ongoing evolution of D where one version was arbitrarily forked off and called D1. Seriously, D1.00 and D 2.00 came out at about the same time: Version D 1.001 Jan 23, 2007; 2.000 Jun 17, 2007. I remember the biggest troubles I had with D2: immutable being introduced and changing, and a bunch of little library renames.... and they weren't really that big of a deal and btw occurred over the next ~2ish *years*. It wasn't all at once - remember "D2" was just the evolving D. D1 was a random, arbitrary snapshot. If I were to do a D3, I'd make it opt in at the module level, and keep it so all D code can be compiled together - corresponding features added each step. For example, a "d3 module" is safe by default. But the safe semantics are still tehre for a "d2 module", you just annotate it elsewhere. Then there's no breakage and you can still change things.
Mar 01
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 02:35 +0000, Meta via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
 D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was either=20
 Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple occasions). A D2=20
 -> D3 transition might generate a lot of publicity if done very=20
 carefully, but more than likely it would just put the nails in=20
 the coffin for good and destroy all the momentum D has built up=20
 over the past 3 years (I feel like 2015 was a big turning point=20
 where D finally got back on peoples' radars).
And Java 5 nearly killed Java, as did Java 8 and Java 9. OK so there was more internecine warfare in the D1 =E2=86=92 D2 thing, but hopefully th= e D2 =E2=86=92 D3 think will not only happen, it will happen relatively soon. Dx =E2=86=92 Dy is the time for important breaking changes. There appear to= be an increasing number of things annoying people about D2, ergo the pressure for D3 is building. NOT evolving from D2 to D3 is what will definitely kill D. --=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 02
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Friday, March 02, 2018 10:37:04 Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
 On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 02:35 +0000, Meta via Digitalmars-d-announce

 wrote:
 […]
 D1 -> D2 nearly killed D (can't remember which, but it was either
 Walter or Andrei that have said this on multiple occasions). A D2
 -> D3 transition might generate a lot of publicity if done very
 carefully, but more than likely it would just put the nails in
 the coffin for good and destroy all the momentum D has built up
 over the past 3 years (I feel like 2015 was a big turning point
 where D finally got back on peoples' radars).
And Java 5 nearly killed Java, as did Java 8 and Java 9. OK so there was more internecine warfare in the D1 → D2 thing, but hopefully the D2 → D3 think will not only happen, it will happen relatively soon. Dx → Dy is the time for important breaking changes. There appear to be an increasing number of things annoying people about D2, ergo the pressure for D3 is building. NOT evolving from D2 to D3 is what will definitely kill D.
Really? The possibility of D3 gets mentioned _way_ less than it used to. It gets mentioned ocassionally at this point but not all that often from what I've seen, and almost always from folks who are new to the newsgroup. Historically, D3 is what folks like to bring up when there's some particular change that they'd like to see and which clearly isn't going to happen in D2, but the idea has never gained any real traction, and as D has matured and grown, the push to create D3 seems to have diminished considerably. We get a lot less of folks trying to push for new features, because it's become clear that D isn't constantly changing everything anymore, whereas when it was younger, we'd make breaking changes all the time. That shift initially resulted in lots of talk about D3, because a number of folks really wanted changes that weren't making it into D2, but that talk has died down over time. And we _have_ still managed to make some significant changes to D without breaking everything or needing D3. Thus far, we've largely been able to make changes without needing to move to D3, and there really isn't agreement on what would be in a potential D3 anyway. There are some issues which may require D3 to fix (e.g. getting rid of auto-decoding probably would, though maybe someone smart will figure out how within D2) given that we don't want to break tons of D programs when making changes, but overall, things have been going fairly well with regards to evolving D2. Regardless, Andrei has been pretty adamant about _not_ doing D3 any time soon, and AFAIK, Walter is in agreement on that. They want D2 to actually grow and become successful, not fork the community between D2 and D3. Yes, D would probably survive it, but it would have a negative impact on D in the short term, and it's not clear that it would even buy us a lot - especially since a lot of the stuff that folks like to suggest for D3 are fairly controversial. Not everything is, but there would almost certainly need to be a pretty significant list of things that we clearly wanted to change with D and couldn't do without bumping the version to D3 for D3 to even be considered, and I really don't see that happening any time soon. For the most part, I think that proposals of real value that don't break everything stand a decent chance of being accepted as DIPs, and most improvements don't require massive breakage. Some, like making safe the default would, and those aren't going to happen in D2, but that sort of thing certainly isn't enough to merit forking the language - not on its own anyway. And I'm quite sure that even if we were all agreed that breaking the defaults for attributes were worth it, there would be quite a lot of arguing about what the defaults should be. safe would almost certainly win, but stuff like pure would be far more debatable, and some folks love to bring up the idea of making variables immutable by default, which doesn't play nicely at all with many D idioms, so I doubt that that sort of change would be accepted even if we definitely were doing D3 - but some folks talk like it's a given that that sort of thing should be in D3. Just discussing what would potentially go in D3 would open up a huge pandora's box of what should and shouldn't be changed, and I don't expect that it would easily result in much of the way of consensus. In any case, I expect that anyone who wants D3 is going to have a very hard time convincing Walter and Andrei that such large breaking changes would be worth it at this point. - Jonathan M Davis
Mar 02
parent psychoticRabbit <meagain meagain.com> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 11:00:09 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 In any case, I expect that anyone who wants D3 is going to have 
 a very hard time convincing Walter and Andrei that such large 
 breaking changes would be worth it at this point.

 - Jonathan M Davis
I agree. I don't think there is enough to warrant a D3 at this point. But still, imagine if every time an architect built a house, it had to be built using the same specs as the previous house. You'd end up with garbage, piled upon garbage. In essence, you'd get C++. So exploring ideas around what a new design might look like, can be useful too, so let's not discourage that by talking about 'forking' concerns.
Mar 02
prev sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Fri, 2018-03-02 at 04:00 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
 In any case, I expect that anyone who wants D3 is going to have a
 very hard
 time convincing Walter and Andrei that such large breaking changes
 would be
 worth it at this point.
I am happy to accept now is not the time, but to say there will be no D3 is probably as bad a position as to say D3 tomorrow please, and D4 the next day. Of course the Linux numbering 3 =E2=86=92 4 was fatuous, no architectural o= r serious breaking change, just a though that the minor number was getting too big. So having D2.999 is fine per se, but advertises a lack of change and a lack of ambition since the language name is D not D2. Fortran, C++, and Java show an obsessive adherence to backward compatibility and yet they increase their major numbers to give the appearance at least of forward progress. There is a balance to be had, but I believe keeping D3 as a formal agenda item is a positive thing for the traction of D. Perhaps, of course we should be talking about D 2.x and D 3.0 and remove the D1, D2, etc. from the debate. --=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 02
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:01:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 So having D2.999 is fine per se, but advertises a lack of 
 change and a lack of ambition since the language name is D not 
 D2.
D just doesn't follow semver. If it did, we would have D79 now, nothing else even comes close to this. And I suspect it won't adopt semver because major number would be so ridiculously high and will advertize something else.
 Fortran, C++, and Java show an obsessive adherence to backward 
 compatibility and yet they increase their major numbers to give 
 the appearance at least of forward progress.
C++ and Fortran don't have version numbers, those are brand numbers.
Mar 04
next sibling parent reply Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sun, 2018-03-04 at 21:12 +0000, Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce
wrote:
 On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:01:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 So having D2.999 is fine per se, but advertises a lack of=20
 change and a lack of ambition since the language name is D not=20
 D2.
=20 D just doesn't follow semver. If it did, we would have D79 now,=20 nothing else even comes close to this. And I suspect it won't=20 adopt semver because major number would be so ridiculously high=20 and will advertize something else.
I do not see your reasoning here. Has the core D computational model changed? I think not. Does D issue bugfix releases? Occasionally. Thus: 2.79.0 seems like a perfectly reasonable semantic version number for D.
 Fortran, C++, and Java show an obsessive adherence to backward=20
 compatibility and yet they increase their major numbers to give=20
 the appearance at least of forward progress.
=20 C++ and Fortran don't have version numbers, those are brand=20 numbers.
Actually no, they are standards version numbers. Once you have an ISO standard for a programming language semantic versioning is impossible, but the standard number is the version number. On the other hand this is trivia and so shouldn't become a Big Issue=E2=84= =A2. --=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 05
parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 20:52:10 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 I do not see your reasoning here. Has the core D computational 
 model changed? I think not.
Major number per semver increases when interface changes, D does it pretty often, it is the fastest moving language I know.
 Does D issue bugfix releases?
Those are point releases.
 2.79.0

 seems like a perfectly reasonable semantic version number for D.
It's a reasonable version number, but doesn't follow semantics of semver. You can't blindly assume that different versioning schemes advertize the same things.
Mar 05
prev sibling parent Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:
On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 21:12:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 D just doesn't follow semver. If it did, we would have D79 now, 
 nothing else even comes close to this. And I suspect it won't 
 adopt semver because major number would be so ridiculously high 
 and will advertize something else.
https://forum.dlang.org/post/drcekmxvfszpwifbukzk forum.dlang.org>
Mar 08
prev sibling parent Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
That's a much nicer way of saying what I was trying to get across.  :-)
Early respondents to a lengthy survey about D usage are not necessarily a
good representation of the more casual user's needs for the language.

--bb



On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Thursday, March 01, 2018 13:24:29 Bill Baxter via Digitalmars-d-announce
 wrote:
 Just don't overlook the fact that people who fill out 30 minute surveys
 right away after being told about them are a self-selected group of
people
 who apparently have way too much time on their hands.
 Which also suggests they would likely also have more free time to go
chase
 down and fix breaks in their legacy code caused by new compilers.
It's also the case that the folks who even see this survey are likely to be a fairly small percentage of the actual user base. So, while its results may be useful, they need to be viewed with that fact in mind. That being said, I think that it's a given that we need to make breaking changes at least occasionally. The question is more how big they can be and how we go about it. Some changes would clearly be far too large to be worth it, whereas others clearly pay for themselves. The harder question is the stuff in between. For instance, while we might not actually have a new operator if D were being redesigned from the ground up (Andrei has previously stated that it really should have just been a function in the standard library or runtime), that would be far too large a change with far too little benefit to be even vaguely worth it at this point. On the other hand, we _did_ change it so that switch statements don't have implicit fallthrough anymore, and that change was _very_ well received, because it caught bugs and it was a quick fix to update correct code that was then an error (it was probably also true that relatively little correct code had to be updated, but that's harder to measure). Each potential breaking change has to be weighed on its own, and the real question is how strongly we weight the pros vs the cons. We could choose to favor breaking code only when it's cleary _very_ benificial to do so, or we could choose to break code any time there's even a slight benefit to it. I think that it's pretty clear that the right choice is somewhere in between those two extremes, but it's not an easy question as to where it is. And as has been discussed before, we have folks clamoring for breaking changes and folks clamoring for nothing to ever break, and sometimes, they're exactly the same folks. :| - Jonathan M Davis
Mar 02
prev sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 19:31:27 Cym13 via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
 - some questions introduce clear bias as they don't have a clear
 default exit path.
Similarly, some of them seem to make the assumption that a problem makes it so that you don't want to use D (e.g. it talks about features discouraging you from using D), which personally, I never find to be the case. There are features that I get annoyed with for various reasons, but they don't discourage me from using D. They just make it harder and/or less pleasant. Assuming that I have free reign to pick which language I'm going to use, about the only thing that's going to make it so that I don't use D is if I really can't do it in D in a reasonable time frame, whereas I can in another language, and that's pretty much only going to be because I need a library that simply isn't available from D and would be too time-consuming to make available from D - especially if I'm in a hurry. No feature of D is going to make me not want to use D. - Jonathan M Davis
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent 12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a 
 few of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had 
 put together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation 
 to use in order to make decisions about where to expend 
 development efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of 
 approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then it was 
 ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing 
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the 
 good stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
Submitted, though I think it's a good idea to create a library that take advantage of the GC. I am hype for the ability to implement your own custom Garbage collector.
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent Paolo Invernizzi <paolo.invernizzi gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a 
 few of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had 
 put together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation 
 to use in order to make decisions about where to expend 
 development efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of 
 approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then it was 
 ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing 
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the 
 good stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
Done! Great initiative! I'm glad to see how things are moving in DLang recently! :-P
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On 28 February 2018 at 05:41, Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a few of the core
 D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had put together. He thought it
 would be useful for the Foundation to use in order to make decisions about
 where to expend development efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of
 approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then it was ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing it, but if
 you want to skip the prose and go straight to the good stuff, here's the
 survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
WTF spaces!!! O_O
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <newsgroup.d jmdavisprog.com> writes:
On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 22:02:21 Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce 
wrote:
 On 28 February 2018 at 05:41, Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce

 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a few of the
 core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had put together. He
 thought it would be useful for the Foundation to use in order to make
 decisions about where to expend development efforts. Eventually Andrei
 gave his stamp of approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then
 it was ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing it, but
 if
 you want to skip the prose and go straight to the good stuff, here's the
 survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_
 survey/
WTF spaces!!! O_O
Don't you mean "WTF tabs!!!"? ;) - Jonathan M Davis
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 12:07:16AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
[...]
 WTF spaces!!! O_O
Don't you mean "WTF tabs!!!"? ;)
Meh. :-D T -- Making non-nullable pointers is just plugging one hole in a cheese grater. -- Walter Bright
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:
On 28 February 2018 at 23:07, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-announce <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 22:02:21 Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce
 wrote:
 On 28 February 2018 at 05:41, Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce

 <digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com> wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a few of the
 core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had put together. He
 thought it would be useful for the Foundation to use in order to make
 decisions about where to expend development efforts. Eventually Andrei
 gave his stamp of approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then
 it was ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing it, but
 if
 you want to skip the prose and go straight to the good stuff, here's the
 survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_
 survey/
WTF spaces!!! O_O
Don't you mean "WTF tabs!!!"? ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIWHMb3JxmE
Feb 28
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 13:41 +0000, Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a few=20
 of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had put=20
 together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation to use=20
 in order to make decisions about where to expend development=20
 efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of approval, the survey=20
 questions were tweaked, and then it was ready to roll.
=20
 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing=20
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the good=20
 stuff, here's the survey link:
=20
 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak
=20
All the 1 to 5 scale questions have the label a over each of the five options so it is not entirely obvious what to choose. Firefox 58.0.1 on Debian Sid. =20 --=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 Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Mar 01
prev sibling next sibling parent meppl <mephisto nordhoff-online.de> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak
I might have overseen it, but in the survey I missed the feature "being able to allocate withing nogc-CTFE-functions". Some people want to promote a nogc library and they cant use CTFE to the full extend then. ( see also: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18119 )
Mar 04
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
But seriously, Stack overflow is a reputation-based system, it 
very hostile from the very start, when you don't have enough 
reputation for pretty much everything, and SO vehemently nags you 
about this on every possible occasion, even baiting you to use 
functionality only to later tell that you don't have enough 
reputation to use it. How can anyone like it is beyond me.
Mar 04
next sibling parent Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan Veelo.net> writes:
On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 15:13:28 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 But seriously, Stack overflow is a reputation-based system, it 
 very hostile from the very start [...]
Very true.
Mar 04
prev sibling parent reply bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 15:13:28 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 But seriously, Stack overflow is a reputation-based system, it 
 very hostile from the very start, when you don't have enough 
 reputation for pretty much everything, and SO vehemently nags 
 you about this on every possible occasion, even baiting you to 
 use functionality only to later tell that you don't have enough 
 reputation to use it. How can anyone like it is beyond me.
It's also very strict and probably have of the posts within Learn here wouldn't be allowed there.
Mar 04
next sibling parent bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 17:26:50 UTC, bauss wrote:
 On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 15:13:28 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 But seriously, Stack overflow is a reputation-based system, it 
 very hostile from the very start, when you don't have enough 
 reputation for pretty much everything, and SO vehemently nags 
 you about this on every possible occasion, even baiting you to 
 use functionality only to later tell that you don't have 
 enough reputation to use it. How can anyone like it is beyond 
 me.
It's also very strict and probably have of the posts within Learn here wouldn't be allowed there.
half*
Mar 04
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Martin Tschierschke <mt smartdolphin.de> writes:
On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 17:26:50 UTC, bauss wrote:
 On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 15:13:28 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 But seriously, Stack overflow is a reputation-based system, it 
 very hostile from the very start, when you don't have enough 
 reputation for pretty much everything, and SO vehemently nags 
 you about this on every possible occasion, even baiting you to 
 use functionality only to later tell that you don't have 
 enough reputation to use it. How can anyone like it is beyond 
 me.
It's also very strict and probably have of the posts within Learn here wouldn't be allowed there.
http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq What about trying to start an own "D Exchange"? I like the possibility to vote for good questions and answers. There are many gems inside the forum, but not so easy to find as in the stack exchange based forums.
Mar 04
next sibling parent bauss <jj_1337 live.dk> writes:
On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 18:52:36 UTC, Martin Tschierschke 
wrote:
 On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 17:26:50 UTC, bauss wrote:
 On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 15:13:28 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 But seriously, Stack overflow is a reputation-based system, 
 it very hostile from the very start, when you don't have 
 enough reputation for pretty much everything, and SO 
 vehemently nags you about this on every possible occasion, 
 even baiting you to use functionality only to later tell that 
 you don't have enough reputation to use it. How can anyone 
 like it is beyond me.
It's also very strict and probably have of the posts within Learn here wouldn't be allowed there.
http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq What about trying to start an own "D Exchange"? I like the possibility to vote for good questions and answers. There are many gems inside the forum, but not so easy to find as in the stack exchange based forums.
A custom forum that isn't based on an email client would probably be better tbh.
Mar 04
prev sibling parent bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 18:52:36 UTC, Martin Tschierschke 
wrote:

 What about trying to start an own "D Exchange"? I like the 
 possibility to vote for good questions and answers. There are 
 many gems inside the forum, but not so easy to find as in the 
 stack exchange based forums.
That wouldn't be a bad thing if it's possible. Stack Overflow is such a joy when you have losers that contribute nothing to a tag voting to close useful questions based on technical interpretations of the rules. One time it was pointed out that none of those that voted to close a particular question had ever contributed even a single question or answer to that tag. And who doesn't love the comments about non-duplicate questions being duplicates, or demanding additional information that's already in the question. Stack Overflow is already available. Maybe it doesn't get used for a reason.
Mar 04
prev sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 17:26:50 UTC, bauss wrote:
 It's also very strict and probably have of the posts within 
 Learn here wouldn't be allowed there.
It's the most hilarious aspect. Apparently questions about design don't belong there. As if the moderators don't even know about the concept.
Mar 04
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Johannes Loher <johannes.loher fg4f.de> writes:
Am 28.02.2018 um 14:41 schrieb Mike Parker:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a few of the
 core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had put together. He
 thought it would be useful for the Foundation to use in order to make
 decisions about where to expend development efforts. Eventually Andrei
 gave his stamp of approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then
 it was ready to roll.
 
 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing it, but
 if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the good stuff, here's
 the survey link:
 
 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak
 
 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/
 
 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
 
Is there a way to directly view the results without taking the survey again?
Mar 10
parent rumbu <rumbu rumbu.ro> writes:
On Saturday, 10 March 2018 at 14:24:42 UTC, Johannes Loher wrote:

 Is there a way to directly view the results without taking the 
 survey again?
https://dlang.typeform.com/report/H1GTak/PY9NhHkcBFG0t6ig
Mar 10
prev sibling parent reply Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a 
 few of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had 
 put together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation 
 to use in order to make decisions about where to expend 
 development efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of 
 approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then it was 
 ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing 
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the 
 good stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
Wow, we got more than 500 responses so far. A huge thank you already! The survey is still open for a few more days, so if you want to make your opinion count now is the last chance.
Mar 11
parent reply Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Sunday, 11 March 2018 at 18:34:57 UTC, Seb wrote:
 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a 
 few of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he had 
 put together. He thought it would be useful for the Foundation 
 to use in order to make decisions about where to expend 
 development efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp of 
 approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then it was 
 ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post announcing 
 it, but if you want to skip the prose and go straight to the 
 good stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
Wow, we got more than 500 responses so far. A huge thank you already! The survey is still open for a few more days, so if you want to make your opinion count now is the last chance.
Today is the final day of the survey. If you haven't taken it, use the last hours ;-)
Mar 14
parent Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Wednesday, 14 March 2018 at 07:37:02 UTC, Seb wrote:
 On Sunday, 11 March 2018 at 18:34:57 UTC, Seb wrote:
 On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:
 About a month ago, Sebastian Wilzbach sent an email out to a 
 few of the core D folks asking for feedback on a survey he 
 had put together. He thought it would be useful for the 
 Foundation to use in order to make decisions about where to 
 expend development efforts. Eventually Andrei gave his stamp 
 of approval, the survey questions were tweaked, and then it 
 was ready to roll.

 Of course I would love for you to read my blog post 
 announcing it, but if you want to skip the prose and go 
 straight to the good stuff, here's the survey link:

 https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak

 The blog:
 https://dlang.org/blog/2018/02/28/the-state-of-d-2018-survey/

 Reddit:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/d_language/comments/80w29n/the_state_of_d_2018_survey/
Wow, we got more than 500 responses so far. A huge thank you already! The survey is still open for a few more days, so if you want to make your opinion count now is the last chance.
Today is the final day of the survey. If you haven't taken it, use the last hours ;-)
It's closed now. Thanks again for all your input! We have received 540 replies - thanks to each and everyone of you who has invested their time to give us such detailed feedback. An initial auto-generated report without the open-text questions can be viewed at: https://dlang.typeform.com/report/H1GTak/PY9NhHkcBFG0t6ig A more in-depth analysis and summary will follow in the next weeks.
Mar 15