DDT 0.5.0 ("Creamfields") released

[#code]

All this seems really good but am I the only one that's getting 
error to download DDT in eclilpse? When I tried following link on 
unbuntu eclipse then I am getting error:

http://ddt.eclipselabs.org.codespot.com/git.updates/

error:

Artifact not found: 
http://ddt.eclipselabs.org.codespot.com/git.updates/content.jar.
Artifact not found: 
http://ddt.eclipselabs.org.codespot.com/git.updates/content.jar.
http://ddt.eclipselabs.org.codespot.com/git.updates/content.jar


Am I missing something?

Thanks


On Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 15:52:24 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> On 01/12/2011 17:44, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-12-01 16:18, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2011 18:29, Trass3r wrote:
>>>> Does DDT use a separate thread for parsing?
>>>> Editing bigger files can be extremely laggy.
>>>
>>> It does use a separate thread for parsing (standard practice 
>>> with any
>>> Eclipse IDE). Doesn't mean there can't be issues causing 
>>> laggyness.
>>>
>>> I'm getting increasingly concerned with these reports of DDT 
>>> becoming
>>> slow when editing large files, but I don't know how to 
>>> replicate them (I
>>> don't program in D with large enough files to ever come 
>>> across it), so
>>> unless someone gives me some test data - the files they are 
>>> editing,
>>> machine specs, what they were doing (just typing or also 
>>> doing content
>>> assist, etc.) - it will be very hard to address this issue!
>>
>> Well, just put a large library in a project, like Phobos, 
>> Tango or DWT.
>> std.datetime in Phobos is 35+k lines of code. Then try 
>> different
>> features like autocompletion and similar.
>>
>
> I'll try something like this, eventually. But we know that the 
> performance of the parser is not that good.
> What I was more concerned about, at least in more immediate 
> terms, is significant performance regressions. That is, stuff 
> that has gotten significantly slower with newer DDT releases... 
> that shouldn't be happening at all. But a performance bug could 
> have been introduced.