Walter Bright дµ½:
> hasenj wrote:
> > When I see that Walter is moving his attention to D(X+1) and forgetting
> > about D(X), I feel like, if the guy behind the language doesn't care,
> > why should *I* care?
>
> Take a look at the D1 changelog. D1 has gotten plenty of regular
> attention -
Hello Andrei,
Walter Bright wrote:
Jason House wrote:
I posted in the other thread how casting to immutable/shared can be
just as bad. A leaked reference prior to casting to immutable/shared
is in effect the same as casting away shared. No matter how you mix
thread local and shared, or mutab
I agree if the flag is called "-release". But if the "disable bounds
checking" flag is renamed to -unsafe or similar, I can't see any
impact on reputation.
Ditto.
Max Samukha:
>I guess many bearophile's benchmarks do not account for GC
> collection cycles,
I have not explored this well yet. From what I've seen, D is sometimes dead
slow at the end program, when many final deallocations happen. In the Java
versions of the tests this doesn't happen. A lot o
On 06/11/2009 07:34, Don wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Don" wrote in message
news:hcvf9l$91...@digitalmars.com...
Justin Johansson wrote:
So what does "toString" mean to you?
It's a hack from the early days of D. Should be unavailable unless
the -debug flag is set, to discourage people from
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:29:43 -0300, Leandro Lucarella
wrote:
>See my other response about efficiency of D when using new/classes a lot.
>You just can't do it efficiently in D, ask bearophile for some benchmarks
>;)
This is in part because D doesn't have a compacting GC. A compacting
GC implies al
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Don wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> Following the safe D discussions, I've had a bit of a change of mind. Time
>> for a new strawman.
>>
>> Based on Andrei's and Cardelli's ideas, I propose that Safe D be defined
>> as the subset of D that guarantees no undefin
On 06/11/2009 07:07, Bob Jones wrote:
"Leandro Lucarella" wrote in message
news:20091106035612.gi3...@llucax.com.ar...
I am not fully against pass-by-ref arrays, I just think in passing by
reference all of the time could have some performance implications.
OK, make 2 different types then: sl
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Jason House wrote:
I posted in the other thread how casting to immutable/shared can be
just as bad. A leaked reference prior to casting to immutable/shared
is in effect the same as casting away sha
Walter Bright wrote:
Following the safe D discussions, I've had a bit of a change of mind.
Time for a new strawman.
Based on Andrei's and Cardelli's ideas, I propose that Safe D be defined
as the subset of D that guarantees no undefined behavior. Implementation
defined behavior (such as varyi
To Don, Walter, or anyone else who knows:
How hard is it going to be to get variadic CTFE functions working?
Or how hard would it be to get
std.metastrings.Format should be a major workhorse of CTFE string
functions, but it can't be because it's all done using template args.
And I'm assuming it's
Yigal Chripun wrote:
BTW, so called native code on Intel processors runs in a VM as well.
Intel's cisc instruction set is translated to a risc like micro-ops and
those micro-ops are executed. the only difference is that this is done
in hardware by the processor.
It's a bit meaningless to cal
d2 into the beta status of it ?
thank you
dolive
13 matches
Mail list logo
