, pushing language's capabilities. So, if
someone is annoyed by the limits of C++, that would be them.
Forget everything, i was thinking that the generic capabilities of D alone
is enough to attract all the boost crowd.
Phew, had to get it out.
...).
They are the top C++ developers, pushing language's capabilities. So, if
someone is annoyed by the limits of C++, that would be them.
Forget everything, i was thinking that the generic capabilities of D
alone is enough to attract all the boost crowd.
Phew, had to get it out.
Why switch state o
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:13:46 +0200, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
Why switch state of the art C++ compilers with years of optimizations
built-in and tooling by D?
Tool and compilers come eventually, especially after big players attend in
discussions.
I don't understand this reasoning really, what e
are the top C++ developers, pushing language's capabilities. So, if
someone is annoyed by the limits of C++, that would be them.
Forget everything, i was thinking that the generic capabilities of D
alone is enough to attract all the boost crowd.
Phew, had to get it out.
The dynamic
I'm trying to switch from C++ to D. But I can't find some things that
I love in C++. For example in C++ I can separate module specification
and implementation. Advertising article "The Case for D" says that it
is real in D too:
"D has a true module system that supports separate compilation and
gen
On 11/27/2011 4:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
"D has a true module system that supports separate compilation and
generates and uses module summaries (highbrowspeak for "header files")
automatically from source, so you don't need to worry about
maintaining redundant files separately, unless you
On 11/27/2011 9:53 AM, so wrote:
Even Herb Sutter broke his silence and mentioned D here and there,
Herb is a very nice (and very smart) guy, and when I've heard him talk about D
he's been very complimentary about our efforts.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/27/2011 06:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
> I'm trying to switch from C++ to D. But I can't find some things
> that I love in C++. For example in C++ I can separate module
> specification and implementation. Advertising article "The Case for
> D
WB> How is it not true?
J> dmd -H [file] -c generates the header file for you quite nicely.
ok. Let's a see:
C++ code.
Specification:
// test.hpp file
#ifndef _test_hpp_
#define _test_hpp_
void foo();
struct Boo
{
public:
void boo();
private:
struct S {};
};
#endif
Implementation:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:44:23 +0200, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/27/2011 4:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
"D has a true module system that supports separate compilation and
generates and uses module summaries (highbrowspeak for "header files")
automatically from source, so you don't need to w
2011/11/28 so :
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:44:23 +0200, Walter Bright
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2011 4:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
>>>
>>> "D has a true module system that supports separate compilation and
>>> generates and uses module summaries (highbrowspeak for "header files")
>>> automatically
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:01:31 +0200, Maxim Fomin
wrote:
In D, when compiler generate "interface" it effectively dumps
implementation in .di file.
This is what i meant by saying it doesn't make sense, it is an
auto-generated file.
You can argue about .di shortcomings but you can't compare t
I come from the C++ world as well. I still do some C++ work, mostly related
to my legacy applications... C++ has no modules. End of story. Header files
are not modules, they are just... piece of source code. I also did some
(toy) Modula-3 projects in the past, and must admit I adore the languag
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:01:31 +0200, Maxim Fomin
wrote:
It is true and makes sense until D will stop claiming .di files are
interface files.
I also was curious how should i replace C library style with .h and .c
files.
In D, when compiler generate "interface" it effectively dumps
implementa
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky <
alexey.veselov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to switch from C++ to D. But I can't find some things that
> I love in C++. For example in C++ I can separate module specification
> and implementation. Advertising article "The Case for D" says t
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:42:24 +0200, Caligo wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky <
alexey.veselov...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm trying to switch from C++ to D. But I can't find some things that
I love in C++. For example in C++ I can separate module specification
and implementa
> The separation of specification and implementation in C/C++ is not some
> feature that they came up. I would call it a design defect. Having to
> split up code between header files and source files is one of the things I
> dislike about C/C++. As for why anyone would be in love with such a thi
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:40:06 +0200, Alexey Veselovsky
wrote:
Now, let's try this on D:
// Implementation
module test;
public {
void foo() {foo_helper();}
struct Boo
{
public:
void boo() {S ss; foo_helper();}
private:
struct S {};
}
}
private {
s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
> I tried to write a lib and a project, which used that lib
> separately, but came to conclusion that the best choice it to pull
> lib code to project one. And it is not a biggest problem, because
> dmd produces 700 kb executable for hello word pro
I think that D should provide an opportunity for both styles: with or
without specification separation from implementation. In some cases I
prefer to not separate implementation (small programs / scripts), but
in some projects I really need to separate implementation from
manually written specifica
On 11/27/2011 11:40 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
Also I can't
write method implementation in different (implementation) file
(without inheritance).
-- .di file
module foo;
int bar();
-- .d file -
module foo;
int bar() { return 3; }
Am 28.11.2011, 11:02 Uhr, schrieb Jude <10equa...@gmail.com>:
I tried to write a lib and a project, which used that lib
separately, but came to conclusion that the best choice it to pull
lib code to project one. And it is not a biggest problem, because
dmd produces 700 kb executable for hello wo
>> Also I can't
>> write method implementation in different (implementation) file
>> (without inheritance).
>
> -- .di file
>
> module foo;
>
> int bar();
>
> -- .d file -
>
> module foo;
>
> int bar() { return 3; }
Method, not global function.
struct Foo
On 11/28/2011 3:19 AM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
Also I can't
write method implementation in different (implementation) file
(without inheritance).
-- .di file
module foo;
struct Foo {
void foo();
}
-- .d file -
module foo;
struct Foo {
> module foo;
>
> struct Foo {
> void foo();
> }
>
> -- .d file -
>
> module foo;
>
> struct Foo {
> void foo() { ... code ... }
> }
ok. What about:
struct Foo {
int a;
int b;
// 100 more fields
...
void foo();
}
Did I must write in impl
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:32:12 +0200, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/28/2011 3:19 AM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
Also I can't
write method implementation in different (implementation) file
(without inheritance).
-- .di file
module foo;
struct Foo {
void foo();
On 11/28/2011 11:44 AM, so wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:42:24 +0200, Caligo wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky <
alexey.veselov...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm trying to switch from C++ to D. But I can't find some things that
I love in C++. For example in C++ I can separate
ok. I just removed from test.di all non public entities.
// D import file generated from 'test.d'
module test;
public
{
void foo();
struct Boo
{
public
{
void boo();
}
}
}
Now, let's build it:
$ dmd test.di test.d main.d
test.d: Error: module t
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:58:25 +0200, Max Samukha wrote:
How would you write libraries?
The way they do, for example, in C# - interface definitions are stored
in the library, no need for separate headers.
Are we talking about the same thing?
Something like
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/
On 2011-11-28 10:01, Maxim Fomin wrote:
I tried to write a lib and a project, which used that lib separately,
but came to conclusion
that the best choice it to pull lib code to project one.
And it is not a biggest problem, because dmd produces 700 kb
executable for hello word program.
Neither t
On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, so wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:58:25 +0200, Max Samukha wrote:
How would you write libraries?
The way they do, for example, in C# - interface definitions are stored
in the library, no need for separate headers.
Are we talking about the same thing?
Something like
h
2011/11/28 Marco Leise :
> Am 28.11.2011, 11:02 Uhr, schrieb Jude <10equa...@gmail.com>:
>
>>> I tried to write a lib and a project, which used that lib
>>> separately, but came to conclusion that the best choice it to pull
>>> lib code to project one. And it is not a biggest problem, because
>>> d
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:34:19 +0200, Max Samukha wrote:
No, it has nothing to do with the IDE. The article describes a visual
tool for viewing meta-data stored in a .NET binary. You don't have to
use it.
Specially for you, die-hard IDE haters, this is how to use the terminal
to create a m
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:52:51 +0200, so wrote:
Now how do you know you have a "Lib", and it implements "hello", what
rule enforces that?
If this is all it does, you are overlooking the most important point of
header files.
It was obscure.
A header enforces its contents for both library writ
2011/11/28 Max Samukha :
> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, so wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:58:25 +0200, Max Samukha
>> wrote:
>>
How would you write libraries?
>>>
>>> The way they do, for example, in C# - interface definitions are stored
>>> in the library, no need for separate headers.
>>
>>
On 11/28/2011 03:52 PM, so wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:34:19 +0200, Max Samukha wrote:
No, it has nothing to do with the IDE. The article describes a visual
tool for viewing meta-data stored in a .NET binary. You don't have to
use it.
Specially for you, die-hard IDE haters, this is how to u
On 11/28/2011 04:05 PM, so wrote:
For the second part if library writer changes anything with
"implementation", that would not affect the user.
In your case it does, because there is no distinction between
specification and implementation
There is, but the specification is bundled with the impl
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:21:03 +0200, Max Samukha wrote:
Could you clarify what is the most important part?
As i tried in the above post, header files are specs, a contract between
library writer and the user.
A dll itself is not a spec, it is the implementation.
If you want to use a libra
Separate hand written specification is rulez for human. It is best
short module description (with some useful manually written comments).
I like it more then autogenerated docs (by doxygen and so on).
Autogenerated specifications (headers and so on) are worst and ugly.
But in language like java an
On 11/28/2011 06:07 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
In conclusion, I find D module support the worst one.
Sad but true.
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:41:30 +0200, Alexey Veselovsky
wrote:
Separate hand written specification is rulez for human. It is best
short module description (with some useful manually written comments).
I like it more then autogenerated docs (by doxygen and so on).
I agree for C/C++ and even fo
Do you think it'd be a good thing to put the .di file in the
generated compiled lib?
That'd be somewhat similar to the c# example.
dmd myprog.d something.dll
searches something.dll for a .di reference, and adds it to the
compile command line if it's there.
On 11/28/2011 09:01 AM, so wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:44:23 +0200, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/27/2011 4:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
"D has a true module system that supports separate compilation and
generates and uses module summaries (highbrowspeak for "header files")
automatically fr
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:26:23 +0200, Timon Gehr wrote:
Nobody stops you from hand crafting *.di files.
My point exactly.
2011/11/28 Timon Gehr :
> On 11/28/2011 09:01 AM, so wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:44:23 +0200, Walter Bright
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/27/2011 4:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
"D has a true module system that supports separate compilation and
generates and uses module summaries
On 11/28/2011 05:41 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
Separate hand written specification is rulez for human. It is best
short module description (with some useful manually written comments).
I like it more then autogenerated docs (by doxygen and so on).
Autogenerated specifications (headers and so o
On 11/28/2011 05:07 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
2011/11/28 Max Samukha:
On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, so wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:58:25 +0200, Max Samukha
wrote:
How would you write libraries?
The way they do, for example, in C# - interface definitions are stored
in the library, no need for sepa
On 11/28/2011 06:41 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
2011/11/28 Timon Gehr:
On 11/28/2011 09:01 AM, so wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:44:23 +0200, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 11/27/2011 4:44 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
"D has a true module system that supports separate compilation and
generates and us
so Wrote:
> http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/11/having-it-all-pythy-syntax/
o.O
overload a lambda?
Alexey Veselovsky Wrote:
> ok. What about:
>
> struct Foo {
> int a;
> int b;
> // 100 more fields
> ...
> void foo();
> }
>
> Did I must write in implementation all this 100+ fields in implementation?
>
> In Ada and Modula there is 2 languages: one for implementation and
>
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:12:32 +0200, Kagamin wrote:
In Java separation is done with interfaces. I think it is right.
For Java, yes.
On 11/28/2011 3:41 AM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
ok. What about:
struct Foo {
int a;
int b;
// 100 more fields
...
void foo();
}
Did I must write in implementation all this 100+ fields in implementation?
Yes. (Unless you decide to use the PIMPL idiom.)
On 11/28/2011 4:00 AM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
ok. I just removed from test.di all non public entities.
// D import file generated from 'test.d'
module test;
public
{
void foo();
struct Boo
{
public
{
void boo();
}
}
}
Now, let's bui
so Wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:12:32 +0200, Kagamin wrote:
>
> > In Java separation is done with interfaces. I think it is right.
>
> For Java, yes.
Java, D or C++, classes and structs are not a separation. Want a real
separation? See COM: it doesn't even have notion of a field.
Walter:
> On 11/28/2011 4:00 AM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
> > Compiler doesn't know anything about "specification" files. So, he
> > did't check specification&implementation conformance.
>
> Yes, that's correct.
And this is positive because?
See also Timon answer:
http://www.digitalmars.com/web
bearophile Wrote:
> And this is positive because?
You say it as if it's negative.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2011 12:37 PM, Kagamin wrote:
> so Wrote:
>
>> http://cpp-next.com/archive/2011/11/having-it-all-pythy-syntax/
>
> o.O
>
> overload a lambda?
And now I see what all the hype is about with D's template system.
Good lord. I've never rea
Am 28.11.2011, 14:42 Uhr, schrieb Maxim Fomin :
2011/11/28 Marco Leise :
Am 28.11.2011, 11:02 Uhr, schrieb Jude <10equa...@gmail.com>:
I tried to write a lib and a project, which used that lib
separately, but came to conclusion that the best choice it to pull
lib code to project one. And it i
Kagamin Wrote:
> bearophile Wrote:
>
> > And this is positive because?
>
> You say it as if it's negative.
For me it is negative as what I understood from this discussion is that
contrary to what is described in TDPL, D modules are not ready to prime time.
At least at the level Modula-2(3),
On 29/11/11 2:12 AM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 28.11.2011, 14:42 Uhr, schrieb Maxim Fomin :
2011/11/28 Marco Leise :
Am 28.11.2011, 11:02 Uhr, schrieb Jude <10equa...@gmail.com>:
I tried to write a lib and a project, which used that lib
separately, but came to conclusion that the best choice it
Paulo Pinto Wrote:
> Kagamin Wrote:
>
> > bearophile Wrote:
> >
> > > And this is positive because?
> >
> > You say it as if it's negative.
>
>
> For me it is negative as what I understood from this discussion is that
> contrary to what is described in TDPL, D modules are not ready to prime
Maxim Fomin Wrote:
> C#: as example above. No headers. Private members are not known.
Maxim Fomin Wrote:
> C#: as example above. No headers. Private members are not known.
Hmm... Really? Though I remember something about "can't access private member"
errors. And yes, metadata sells you everyth
On 11/28/2011 08:40 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/28/2011 4:00 AM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
ok. I just removed from test.di all non public entities.
// D import file generated from 'test.d'
module test;
public
{
void foo();
struct Boo
{
public
{
void boo();
}
}
}
Now, let's build it:
$ dmd t
On 11/29/2011 1:46 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
Which means you also get a horrible O(n) algorithm for something that should be
a couple of compares. Why DMD does this is beyond me.
I did it to get it up and running, and haven't revisited that yet.
Global float arrays can bloat executables as
On 11/28/2011 9:40 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/28/2011 05:41 PM, Alexey Veselovsky wrote:
Separate hand written specification is rulez for human. It is best
short module description (with some useful manually written comments).
I like it more then autogenerated docs (by doxygen and so on).
Auto
On 11/28/2011 8:07 AM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
Probably i am mistaken that this post supports D modules
(in a way, showing that header files are crap), but ...
In C# no headers are required, because it includes metadata in dynamic library.
In your example you link code to compiled library without hea
Walter Bright Wrote:
> It's too bad there's no way to 'bind' arbitrary data to shared executable
> library files
Would using the resource compiler work on Windows? I'm pretty sure dlls
have icon resources just like exes, so having a string resource in there might
work too.
(I don't know that mu
On 12/2/2011 5:44 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
It's too bad there's no way to 'bind' arbitrary data to shared executable
library files
Would using the resource compiler work on Windows? I'm pretty sure dlls
have icon resources just like exes, so having a string resource in the
On 2011-12-03 02:44, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
It's too bad there's no way to 'bind' arbitrary data to shared executable
library files
Would using the resource compiler work on Windows? I'm pretty sure dlls
have icon resources just like exes, so having a string resource in ther
69 matches
Mail list logo
