TDPL goes out for preliminary review

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

retard wrote:
> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:55:12 -0500, merlin wrote:
> 
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> TDPL, currently counting 398 pages including a small index, has entered
>>> editorial review this morning. The book draft includes everything
>>> except the threading chapter. I've marked the personal record of
>>> writing one chapter in one night :o).
>> Congratulations.  I must profess that over the last couple of months
>> I've been feeling a big uptick of enthusiasm about D2.  It is really
>> quit an amazing language and with library and tool support should be
>> able to deliver what C, C++, Java, C# (and lately Go) have not.
>>
>> I did go through a period of skepticism about D leadership when I
>> realized that D2 was not really backwards compatible with D1 and had
>> trouble understanding why llvm hasn't played a bigger role in the long
>> term planning of the project.  I have since come around to the point of
>> view that my fears were mostly misplaced...D2 is something quite special
>> and I think ultimately will take hold.
> 
> Just like D1 solved the problem of metaprogramming, D2 will solve many, 
> if not most, multi-core threading problems with the immutable and thread 
> local data types.

Keeping my fingers crossed regarding that one :o).

Thank you for your vote of confidence, it is indeed quite a turnaround 
from people's (and, in fact, some of my) feelings of a few months ago. 
We've experienced a long, unprecedented, and completely serendipitous 
windfall of productivity since around the time Don joined the compiler 
work. I guess there is a correlation there :o). It's just been one lucky 
strike after another.

But let's not forget we have concurrency ahead of us. I encourage you 
all to chime in with your thoughts and ideas regarding all aspects of 
concurrency. The recent multicore performance bug is a great starting 
point. If you try e.g. shared and it's broken, let us know. If you try 
it and it works, push it til it breaks. If you have ideas on how to make 
semantic checking better, pipe up.


Andrei