Re: A Mathematician looks at D
On Monday, 18 February 2013 at 22:07:00 UTC, Joshua Niehus wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/18r7zk/a_mathematician_looks_at_d/ No REPL, I guess we are rubbish? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read–eval–print_loop says almost ALL languages one way or another have it, mentions c/c++... a sick joke to someone who has C++ background and learning CL. Language wars are over and substance is not the victor, it doesn't mean anything anymore, everything has FP, OOP, GUI, REPL, LC, RP, OSD... and what have you. It is like all computer industry is swarmed by marketing and no actual programmer/scientist left. REPL in CL is live coding, not a language feature from future, something already there for many decades. You have an application *running* you change something, you hit a button and *instantly* you have the result right there in front of you. If you don't have a REPL (and many other features probably only available to lisp), yes you are rubbish if you are a dynamic language. D's strength is templates, static typing and needs focus on that.
Re: Crystal
On 2013-02-17 07:28, Ary Borenszweig wrote: The goal of this programming language it so be as efficient as possible, but probably it won't be as efficient as C in the general case. But... who knows? Do you know abou julia ? http://julialang.org/
Re: A Mathematician looks at D
On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 09:11:15 UTC, so wrote: On Monday, 18 February 2013 at 22:07:00 UTC, Joshua Niehus wrote: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/18r7zk/a_mathematician_looks_at_d/ No REPL, I guess we are rubbish? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read–eval–print_loop says almost ALL languages one way or another have it, mentions c/c++... a sick joke to someone who has C++ background and learning CL. Well you always have CINT. http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cint It is like all computer industry is swarmed by marketing and no actual programmer/scientist left. REPL in CL is live coding, not a language feature from future, something already there for many decades. You have an application *running* you change something, you hit a button and *instantly* you have the result right there in front of you. Quite true. Smalltalk and Lisp were already doing in the late 70's, funny how we ended up exchanging such development environments for primitive languages like C in name of performance, only to try to duplicate them almost 50 years later. Every time I see a live coding demo I can only laugh and remember I was doing that back in 1995 in Smalltalk VisualWorks.
Re: A Mathematician looks at D
On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 00:57:31 UTC, Joshua Niehus wrote: On Monday, 18 February 2013 at 23:55:46 UTC, bearophile wrote: Most exploratory mathematics systems have a REPL, because for some people and for some kinds of problems, it's much better to have it. It's not for everyone nor for every kind problem. I'll take your word for it, in my narrow experience, I've found REPLs slow me down. And as for graphing math problems, I found MatLab, Mathematica or even OSX's Grapher to be sufficient for my usages (when I was a student). In any event, I wouldn't consider a language rubbish because it doesn't have a REPL. Assuming we are talking about same thing (as all language trying to replicate the lisp based REPL, and failing, it is possible you haven't seen the real thing), it can't possibly slow you down, quite quite (could add more) the opposite. It is not forced, it is a gift. You hit the same compile key but you don't have to compile everything, you can compile a single function or a file and you don't have to restart anything, you can do all this in a running application and work as you see the changes take effect.
Re: A Mathematician looks at D
On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 12:27:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Smalltalk and Lisp were already doing in the late 70's, funny how we ended up exchanging such development environments for primitive languages like C in name of performance, only to try to duplicate them almost 50 years later. Every time I see a live coding demo I can only laugh and remember I was doing that back in 1995 in Smalltalk VisualWorks. I was ignorant of all of this and took me more than six years to learn such development environments existed and that is by luck (more like hunch). This is still somehow healthy process as i am going forward. What is your excuse? How do you put up with this? You are so much better than me, because i know i couldn't.
Re: A Mathematician looks at D
On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 14:13:17 UTC, so wrote: On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 12:27:46 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Smalltalk and Lisp were already doing in the late 70's, funny how we ended up exchanging such development environments for primitive languages like C in name of performance, only to try to duplicate them almost 50 years later. Every time I see a live coding demo I can only laugh and remember I was doing that back in 1995 in Smalltalk VisualWorks. I was ignorant of all of this and took me more than six years to learn such development environments existed and that is by luck (more like hunch). This is still somehow healthy process as i am going forward. What is your excuse? How do you put up with this? You are so much better than me, because i know i couldn't. I was lucky that my university (FCT/UNL in Lisbon) had a strong focus in compiler design, which made me experiment a lot of languages. That Smaltalk environment was used for creation of a reversi clone. :) It is a matter of what you get to pay to do. For example I would also rather do desktop applications than web ones, but here in Germany almost everyone is paying for WebUIs, so I need to put up with it. Similar with programming languages. Have you ever seen this video of how Lisp machines used to be? http://www.loper-os.org/?p=932 The later model Ivory was even better. All of this in the 80s.
Re: A Mathematician looks at D
On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 14:29:19 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Have you ever seen this video of how Lisp machines used to be? http://www.loper-os.org/?p=932 The later model Ivory was even better. All of this in the 80s. I have seen that but too much hardware talk which i have not much interest, i'll try again.
Re: Crystal
On 2/20/13 6:28 AM, Knud Soerensen wrote:
On 2013-02-17 07:28, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
The goal of this programming language it so be as efficient as possible,
but probably it won't be as efficient as C in the general case. But...
who knows?
Do you know abou julia ?
http://julialang.org/
Yes :-)
Before we started developing Crystal we searched for similar languages,
found Julia and it really amazed us.
It's similar in some aspects, like the use of LLVM, multiple-dispatch
and the idea that implementing everything in the same language leads for
more optimizable and inlineable code (compared to Matlab, R, Python or
Ruby, where when you want to have optimized code you write it in C).
On the other hand, you must specify the structure (and optionally the
types) of a type:
type Foo
bar
baz::Int
qux::Float64
end
In Crystal a class's fields and types are inferred by its usage. And
anywhere in the code you can reopen a class to add more fields/methods
to it, which is something we like when you want to change/extend a
library's code without modifying its code (aka monkey patching :-P)
The following is an error in Julia:
julia a = [1, hello]
no promotion exists for Int64 and ASCIIString
But in Crystal it works just fine (I think you can still have arrays of
mixed types in Julia, but you either must specify it as Array{Any} or
use another constructor, not sure). We want that to work transparently
(with a minimal impact on performance, of course).
And Julia is oriented to technical computing, but we want Crystal to be
a general purpose programming language (not sure it can be a systems
programming language... probably yes since we already have pointers and
pointer arithmetic, but we'll probably need to add a lot more to the
language).
Finally, Julia has a macro system similar to Crystal... and in fact we
took the idea from there (though the original idea seems to come from Lisp).
Re: D 2.062 release
On 2/19/13 6:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 2/18/2013 11:17 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2013-02-18 21:58, Walter Bright wrote: I forgot to include VERSION in the zip file. Its contents are: 2.062 all on one line. I'll fix the packages. Do you have an automated script for packing up the zip file? If not, this is the time to create one. We have seen this problem before, IIRC. Yes, I do use a script. The script has to copy all the correct files over to the right place. VERSION is a new file in a new place, and the script needed updating to copy that one. Automation is great, and I use it. But files appear, disappear, and change directory from release to release, and so the scripts must change as well. Maybe you can make the script uncompress the zip and build dmd... if it can build it, everything's fine :-)
Re: D 2.062 release
On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 06:39:12 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: On 02/19/2013 09:57 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote: Each developer who works on bugs and enhancements for a given release can keep a private journal, some small text file somewhere. +1 Although, I have seen this done in Bugzilla itself: Every bug has a field that contains what goes into the release notes. Any bug that is a part of a release must have that field filled in and reviewed. Pretty simple and works well. Ali That's my first '+1' ever! +1 to you, sir!
