"BCS" <n...@anon.com> wrote in message news:a6268ffbc7d8cc213dc5fee...@news.digitalmars.com... > Hello aJ, > >> "BCS" <n...@anon.com> wrote in message >> news:a6268ffbc158cc2111f3e3b...@news.digitalmars.com... >> >>> Hello aJ, >>> >>>> You sound angry that your feature is not a fit for my development >>>> process. >>>> >>> I think the frustration here is that you seem to be saying that you >>> can't do something in D that you want to do but we have yet to figure >>> out what it is. >>> >> No, not at all. I realized far back in this thread that I can develop >> in D as I do now in C++ (header files come first). The thread went on >> with people trying to convince me how wrong that process is (?). >> > > I'm still not clear on exactly what you plan on doing.
"Traditional" (read C/C++ like) software development. > If you plan on generating the function prototypes Nope. I plan on hand-crafting header files before I create any implementation files. > in a .d file and filling out the bodies later, go for it. Oh, by "generating" (bad choice of word), you meant "writing". Yes I do. > If you plan on hand writing the .di file Ooops! No I don't! Yes, I will be "modeling" via header files. > and then writing the implementation in a .d file... ah... that's a bad > idea (for one there is no error checking between a .di file and the > implementation file). Now you get what I was saying above! Yes? Ohhhh! You mean that .di files are NOT like C++ header files. I think I see what you mean. Other people have told me I could work the same way I currently do in C++, but apparently, there is a big paradigm shift in the development model between C++ and D. I never even considered that D meant changing the process. Very, very good info I am getting here. Maybe I asked too soon about a D IDE, as I can't invest as much time (brainpower actually) as required to get my mind around the "whole smear" right now. I may just concentrate on select features of D for now (as I have been doing).