View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
he-man
Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:55 am Post subject: D language plans. Please come in. |
|
|
After reading the gabe post, I have something to propose.
I'd like to see this language shine because I think it has a lot of potential. But for now I see some problems.
I use linux in every day coding. I got the package from digital mars. One thing I realized is that the package is ugly to install. . I can comprise this because Walter is the only writer of the compiler I think. Maybe we should use autotools to package it, since it is the standard in linux, and make an installer (if not available, I don't know) for windows.
I think the first thing should be done as soon as possible is to write an official 1.0 specification to match with the real compiler, make an official coding-style guidelines for code writers, make an official how-to document a source code file, for example, saying what you must say first about the function or class and what you should put in the long description part. What you never should... And, if needed, reorganize the libraries that is necessary.
I think that redesigning the website with a more attractive layout is a MUST, like documentation (it's all about marketing). Try for example www.python.org . Do you all remember how ugly it was? Now, when you see the homepage you feel like to start downloading python, it gives another feeling to look at it.
I propose to use this thread as a starting point of re-organization discussion, and to get informed about what should be done about the "marketing" of the D language. Things like writing documentation and the specification, to make it look a serious language to use. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kris
Joined: 27 Mar 2004 Posts: 1494 Location: South Pacific
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm all for the "documentation" aspect of that ~ it's often hard to justify using poorly documented code.
And packaging is great too. Would be really nice to package a cohesive set of libraries (not too much, not too little) with a common approach to useful documentation. Installers are cool also, if somebody is good at that?
It's been suggested that Build be packaged alongside, and that perhaps a GDC binary might be good? I don't know if Walter permits redistribution of DMD at this point ... anyone else know?
- Kris |
|
Back to top |
|
|
he-man
Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No idea if it lets redistribution.
Is GDC usable at this point? Could tell which features are implemented? The page is not very informative, just lists changes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
StringCheesian
Joined: 31 Mar 2005 Posts: 17
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
GDC is perfectly usable. It's just a little behind and not so actively maintained. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FunkyM
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 5 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agree with #1.
Especially website-wise, D misses it's selling point. GDC is usable and I assume the "lacking behind" will be solved sooner or later as well as it appears it will go to some public repository instead of solo-maintained.
I'd also recommend moving the off-documentation phpwiki kind of stuff someone created to dsource for keeping stuff at one place for now.
I am working on a mockup for a centralized D website at the moment.
GO D!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
he-man
Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 14
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll look forward to seeing that web |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|