Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Xavier" <x...@nospam.net> wrote in message > news:j51p5q$2utg$1...@digitalmars.com... >> >> "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message >> news:j51m0l$2prg$1...@digitalmars.com... >>> >>> In both this and your other post, you're conflating the notions of >>> the "language quality" vs "implementation quality". The two are not >>> the same. >> >> They are not necessarily orthogonal though either. Surely you are >> just focusing on design and maybe semantics and maybe even syntax, >> but those aren't the only criteria and of those things, C++ and D >> have more in common than they have not in common. For instance, if >> implementation quality is bad, maybe the language's implementability >> is bad. If so, then it's a language "quality" issue. Now you can >> argue that C++ is much worse in regards to implementability, but >> that doesn't really say anything more than something like "D is >> better than the POS that C++ is". To be markedly different from C++, >> D would have to be thought of as being in a different category than >> "which is the better POS?", but of course it cannot, for it comes >> from the same family, "one generation newer than C++". >>> Now, yes, D effectively has one implementation (the DMD frontend), >>> but even considering that, the notions are still worth separating: >>> >>> For one thing, implementation quality is much easier to improve than >>> language quality. >> >> That may be true if one had a language that indeed was at some >> superior design level, but D is not at that level. It's at the same >> level as C++ is, so there is major room for improvement (i.e., >> requires a different language) in a number of areas. >> > > What you're ultimately saying
Uh, uh... do NOT tell me what I am "ultimately saying", K? K. (Your stupid use of the language, noted :P). > is that if a guitar has a crappy first > and second string (and therefore sounds lousy), then you also have to > replace the other four strings, the pickups, the head, the body, the > amp, the neck and the carrying case to make it sound good again. You are so confused, you don't even know which way is up, let alone forward. In my experience (not to quote James Kanze, though :P), I "learned" (was whipped by that soundbox one too many times... or YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!) to pluck those strings differently, and a "stupid lil box with steel strings", became my... someone.. oh fuck you already and get the fuck out of my face. Compile that with your semicolon synchronization crutch. That aside (read, ignore it), why take you take you <> AMP, and shove it. Whatch ya gonna do without electricity, "fan boy", huh? > Replacing the two crappy strings won't be enough to make it sound > significantly better. You are "way out of your league". > > What you're missing Don't you tell me what I'm missing. > is that a minority portion *can* ruin a whole. Take your politics elsewhere, I am not your audience. > If > you consider D and C++ to be mostly the same, then C++ is crappy > because of, what you're perceiving to be, a minority subset of it's > design. D cuts out the cancer and saves the whole. Like I say, I reject your drugs. Push on me, I may get mad. Push on someone else, I may get furious. > > Your notion that a big imporvement requires a big change is just plain > false. And maybe if you try to "put words in my mouth" one more time, you will taste aligator skin? > > >>> An implementation deficiency can always be fixed. But a language >>> deficiency can usually only be fixed if it's an additive change, >>> which: #1 Rules out all non-additive improvements, and #2 Often >>> forces an inferior solution to be used, creating language cruft. >>> >>> Secondly, it *IS* possible, and not at all uncommon, for a language >>> deficiency to be MORE severe than an implementation deficiency. For >>> example, updating header files and keeping them in-sync with the >>> implementation is far more time consuming than working around any >>> of the bugs in D's module system. Another: Certain details about >>> C++ *force* the language to be slow-to-compile. That CANNOT be >>> improved. As a consequence, many C++ projects take hours to >>> compile. Unless you shell out the $$$ for a distributed-compilation >>> cluster. Either way, that's much more costly than dealing with any >>> D bug I've come across in the last year (yes, there were some >>> severe ones in the past, but those are now fixed). >> >> So large scale software development is the only concern? Seems rather >> contrived point. C'mon now, a lot of software is NOT that. > > You know perfectly well those were just examples. Contraire!! You were politicing, bitch. Dish it out... take it. Changing your story now? > >> And notice too that for software development that is not that, >> "intellisense" dramatically reduces the number of times a programmer >> hits the compile button. That one thing is not as big an issue and >> certainly it pales in comparison to other language design flaws, >> which C++ and D both share. >> > > 1. IDE features are not substitutes for language improvement. Numbering stuff does not make it significant. I don't know what else to call it but "intellisense", but it's good stuff. Is that patentable? (Yes, I would like to know that, you "joe-coders" that don't care about "any of that" nevermind). Your absolutist-style of "reasoning" is annoying. > > 2. Such features don't end up in a IDE "for free". There's cost > associated with actually putting them in there for a given language. > You're not factoring that in. Oh yeah, I'm so wet behind the ears, huh. Tell me something I don't know. I dare you. > Additionally, this also implies that > not everyone always has such features available. That is just plain jane lame. >>> >>> So no, it's NOT a contradiction that D can be a better language >>> while still having implementation issues. >> >> Anyway, you can talk until you are blue in the face, but you can't >> convince me that D and C++ aren't in the same category (as far as >> language design goes). You can call C++ a POS, but then, to me, that >> means that at best, D is just a better POS. But not to end this post >> on a bad note/word, I admire C++ a little bit. I certainly don't >> hate it. I can deal with it's shortcomings for now, so I could >> probably deal with D's also, but if I was thinking about jumping >> ship, I'd be swimming toward an island and not another ship. > > Yes, because if one boat starts sinking, they're all about to start > sinking... > > And if you felt sick due to kidney failure, you'd insist that > replacing the kidney will just make you slightly less sick. So you'd > insist the doctor also replace your heart, your hip and your leg, > fuse your spine, perform brain surgery, die your hair, and give you > glasses, dentures and a facelift... I owe you WHAT?!
