"Leandro Lucarella" <llu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:20091024182205.ga28...@llucax.com.ar... > AJ, el 24 de octubre a las 01:44 me escribiste: >> "Leandro Lucarella" <llu...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:20091023125658.ga23...@llucax.com.ar... >> > AJ, el 22 de octubre a las 22:08 me escribiste: >> >> > I'm still not clear on exactly what you plan on doing. >> >> Ooops! No I don't! Yes, I will be "modeling" via header files. >> > >> > May I suggest something? If you want to "model via header files", write >> > .d >> > files with just declarations (skip implementations). You'll end up with >> > hand written .di (headers) files, but in a .d files, so you can still >> > automatically generate .di files from it. Use the .d files as an import >> > in >> > other modules (i.e., don't provide hand written .di files only). Then, >> > when you want to start implementing your "model", just add the bodies >> > to >> > the functions in the "modeled" .d file. >> > >> > The effect in the development process is the same as hand writing .h >> > files >> > and progressively fill the .cpp files with the implementation, but you >> > are >> > doing all the work in just *one* place (the .cpp/.d files) and >> > generating >> > the headers files (.h/.di) from that. >> > >> > What problems do you find in that scheme? >> >> I'm convinced: D is not me. > > My question was honest, I'm really curious about what problems do see.
While I was being just a tad facetious, I was not nearly entirely so being. I cannot make an assessment of the D development process in depth at this time (but I'm hardly new at SW dev and can eval things at a high level and determine whether or not they have value for me (for example, if it's not a curly brace language, it's not for me)). I have no issue with my C++ process (and I even like it over the D one). To each there own. I need to get some software out the door, and one doesn't do that by destroying the old factory and putting up a new one.