D Programming Language book - outdated, list of changes since?

[Daniel Davidson]

On Thursday, 24 October 2013 at 18:14:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 14:39:21 Suliman wrote:
>> It would be great to have updated TDPL book...
>
> I don't understand why people keep saying that. Is it because 
> people keep
> repeating that incorrect assumption that it's out-of-date? Or 
> is it just that
> too many people have the impression that D has changed 
> drastically since TDPL
> was released? Almost nothing in TDPL is out-of-date, and for 
> the most part,
> the stuff that is out-of-date is out-of-date because it has 
> never been
> implemented and not because something has changed.
>

I think your typical user (not one who works on D or phobos 
itself) runs into difficulties that take skill, understanding and 
sometimes knowledge of D history to work around and feel 
comfortable. The whole transitive mutability was a huge time sync 
for me and I would have liked more guidance. For instance, TDPL 
covers it, but it does not take you into the pitfalls of using it 
or the right/wrong way to scale with it. It does not detail the 
issues with associative arrays, for example. It does a great 
"this is how it works and here are the promised benefits" - but 
issues come up that make it feel harder to use. I love D, but so 
far I have to say it is a language that can make you feel stupid. 
With C++ there is less of that because the expectations are it is 
difficult and a PITA.


> http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.1762.1373097795.13711.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
>
> If some of the stuff that's been discussed in the newsgroup 
> gets implemented
> (e.g. getting rid of toString, opEquals, toHash, and opCmp from 
> Object), then
> TDPL will over time become more out-of-date and more incorrect, 
> but at this
> point, the main problem is the errata. I could see someone 
> wanting a new
> addition that described features that have been added since 
> then (e.g. UDAs),
> but that list is quite short. If anything, the problem with 
> TDPL is that some
> of what it describes still hasn't been implemented yet, and 
> that list is also
> quite short. It explicitly avoided discussing things that 
> weren't considered a
> sure thing at the time, so it's largely still correct and 
> relevant.
>

You may be right. Maybe TDPL is not lacking for falling behind 
the language too much. It is also great at teaching C.S. concepts 
beyond the D language in general. But if you really want to know 
how to successfully use D, which is what people want from TDPL, 
it needs more. Either a second edition, or a different more 
advanced book, a cookbook, an effective ways book.

> I really think that it's far too early for a new edition of 
> TDPL. If we need
> more of anything, it's more online tutorials and articles on D, 
> not a new
> edition of TDPL.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I wish you would write a book :-)

Thanks
Dan