Walter Bright wrote:
retard wrote:
Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:19:25 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
When I then picked up K+R C, I never wrote another line of Pascal. It so
soured me on Pascal that I never got on the later bandwagons of Modula
II, Delphi, TurboPascal, etc. Never even looked at them.
The
retard wrote:
Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:19:25 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
When I then picked up K+R C, I never wrote another line of Pascal. It so
soured me on Pascal that I never got on the later bandwagons of Modula
II, Delphi, TurboPascal, etc. Never even looked at them.
The programming-language-
retard wrote:
Regarding Smalltalk, its syntax is weird for people that come from
C/C++
I claim that currently this is the main reason for people not adopting
Smalltalk or any other language. Even if smalltalk was 50% faster than C+
+ and 100% safer, there would be legions of morons how still w
Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:19:25 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Walter Bright" wrote in message
>> news:hhgvqk$8c...@digitalmars.com...
>>> An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
>>>
>>> http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
>>
>> Didn't read the original article, but th
Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:23:03 +, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a...@a.a)'s article
>> "Walter Bright" wrote in message
>> news:hhgvqk$8c...@digitalmars.com...
>> > An interesting counterpoint to the usual FP hype:
>> >
>> > http://prog21.dadgum.com/55.html
>> Didn't read the ori
Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:23:36 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> yigal chripun wrote:
>> Have you ever actually used Smalltalk?? I have used it and it's the
>> easiest language to use by far, having conditionals as methods of
>> Boolean is much better, easier to read and more flexiable.
>>
>> The beauty o
Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:00:53 -0500, bearophile wrote:
> yigal chripun:
> The Windows95 OS may be worse, but the GUI of XP was much more refined
> and usable for non-guru-level users. Things are slowly changing, as
> Ubuntu GUI gets a bit better, it eventually will become about as good as
> Windows95
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 06:53:53 -0500, Trass3r wrote:
Am 03.01.2010, 12:33 Uhr, schrieb bearophile :
// alternative 1:
enum RGBA[] data1 = [{0x00, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30}, {0x40, 0x50, 0x60,
0x70}];
// alternative 2:
enum RGBA[] data2 = [RGBA(0x00, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30), RGBA(0x40, 0x50,
0x60, 0x70)
We are arguing in circles, so I will just stop :)
I'll address the one point I think we both feel is most important below
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:19:52 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:25:25 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven S
Graham St Jack wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:32:52 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think we are now in the position of defining a solid set of
concurrency primitives for D. This follows many months of mulling over
models and options.
It would be great to open the participation to the desig
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:32:52 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I think we are now in the position of defining a solid set of
> concurrency primitives for D. This follows many months of mulling over
> models and options.
>
> It would be great to open the participation to the design as broadly as
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:25:25 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Not having opSlice be part of the interface itself does not preclude
it from implementing opSlice, and does not preclude using ranges of
it in std.algorithm. If I'm not m
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:25:25 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Not having opSlice be part of the interface itself does not preclude it
from implementing opSlice, and does not preclude using ranges of it in
std.algorithm. If I'm not mistaken, all functions in
== Quote from Jason House (jason.james.ho...@gmail.com)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > Brad Roberts graciously accepted to set up the dmd-concurrency mailing
> > list on his server. The enrollment is open, please visit
> > http://lists.puremagic.com if you are interested in participatin
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Brad Roberts graciously accepted to set up the dmd-concurrency mailing
> list on his server. The enrollment is open, please visit
> http://lists.puremagic.com if you are interested in participating.
>
> Andrei
I can't seem to configure my news reader to point to list
bearophile wrote:
This is a paper by Markus Mock is about the usefulness of the "restrict"
annotation in medium-sized C programs:
http://www.cs.pitt.edu/~mock/papers/clei2004.pdf
The author finds that restrict is not significantly useful in the bulk of
programs, while it can be useful in compu
This is a paper by Markus Mock is about the usefulness of the "restrict"
annotation in medium-sized C programs:
http://www.cs.pitt.edu/~mock/papers/clei2004.pdf
The author finds that restrict is not significantly useful in the bulk of
programs, while it can be useful in computational kernels (sm
Am 03.01.2010, 14:00 Uhr, schrieb bearophile :
Trass3r:
Alternative 1: I heard struct literals could be removed.
I haven't heard that. They are recently changed a little, but you
already know that from another thread.
I read somewhere it might conflict with function literals: {...}
A
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:49:08 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
My theory is, given this list of ranges, if you pair them with an
algorithm that requires save capability, you wouldn't want to use
that algorithm on it anyways (kinda like
yigal chripun:
> Compare to cars - the most popular and successful design is that of the
> internal combustion engine yet it's the worst design in technical terms,
> there are more effecient and much cleaner designs.
Most of those alternative designs have one or more flaws, or used to have in
t
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:49:08 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
My theory is, given this list of ranges, if you pair them with an
algorithm that requires save capability, you wouldn't want to use that
algorithm on it anyways (kinda like the consume example).
W
On 2010-01-03 00:51:46 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
First, opening files silently whenever an algorithm feels the need to
save its state is just madness. What if the operating system decide to
pop a security window when opening a restricted file? What if the file
has been deleted or repl
Trass3r:
> Alternative 1: I heard struct literals could be removed.
I haven't heard that. They are recently changed a little, but you already know
that from another thread.
> Alternative 2:
> 1) it's cumbersome, especially if you got a huge array
But it's clean & readable, and more flexible be
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> yigal chripun wrote:
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> >
> >> yigal chripun wrote:
> >>> Have you ever actually used Smalltalk?? I have used it and it's the
> >>> easiest language to use by far, having conditionals as methods of
> >>> Boolean is much better, easier to read a
Am 03.01.2010, 12:33 Uhr, schrieb bearophile :
// alternative 1:
enum RGBA[] data1 = [{0x00, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30}, {0x40, 0x50, 0x60, 0x70}];
// alternative 2:
enum RGBA[] data2 = [RGBA(0x00, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30), RGBA(0x40, 0x50,
0x60, 0x70)];
Alternative 1: I heard struct literals could be r
Brad Roberts graciously accepted to set up the dmd-concurrency mailing
list on his server. The enrollment is open, please visit
http://lists.puremagic.com if you are interested in participating.
Andrei
Am 03.01.2010, 12:20 Uhr, schrieb bearophile :
It's not supposed to work, "dup" allocated memory with malloc, so it's
(currently) a run time thing (in future this may change).
So how to "create" an array expression at compile-time to enforce
reinterpret_cast instead of conversion?
//
yigal chripun wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
yigal chripun wrote:
Have you ever actually used Smalltalk?? I have used it and it's the
easiest language to use by far, having conditionals as methods of
Boolean is much better, easier to read and more flexiable.
The beauty of smalltalk is that you c
Trass3r:
> > What's wrong with just (D2 code):
> > short[] a3 = [5, 3];
> Nothing, but it's just the stripped down example.
I was not answering you, but what Denis Koroskin has written. This thread is
getting too much confused. And I think I have already seen a very similar
thread elsewhere.
Trass3r:
> > short[] t = cast(short[])[5,3];
> > short[] t2 = cast(short[])[5,3].dup;
> >
>
> Second one still doesn't work at compile-time.
It's not supposed to work, "dup" allocated memory with malloc, so it's
(currently) a run time thing (in future this may change).
Bye,
bearophile
Walter Bright Wrote:
> yigal chripun wrote:
> > Have you ever actually used Smalltalk?? I have used it and it's the
> > easiest language to use by far, having conditionals as methods of
> > Boolean is much better, easier to read and more flexiable.
> >
> > The beauty of smalltalk is that you can
Trass3r schrieb:
Any reason for defining the behavior like that?
I mean converting an array to an array of structs doesn't make sense as
soon as you have multiple struct members cause
cast(Foo[])[0,1,2,3,4] gets rewritten as
[cast(Foo) 0, cast(Foo) 1, cast(Foo) 2, cast(Foo) 3, cast(Foo) 4]
Steven Schveighoffer schrieb:
if you cast an array literal, then it reinterprets each element as if
each element were cast to that type.
otherwise, it's a reinterpret_cast as you say.
Any reason for defining the behavior like that?
The problem is forcing the compiler to reinterpret_cast at
Denis Koroskin schrieb:
thus doing at runtime something I'd like
to be done at compile-time.
I feel so as well.
Steven Schveighoffer schrieb:
short[] t = cast(short[])[5,3];
short[] t2 = cast(short[])[5,3].dup;
Second one still doesn't work at compile-time.
bearophile schrieb:
What's wrong with just (D2 code):
short[] a3 = [5, 3];
Nothing, but it's just the stripped down example.
auto t = [0xFF, 0x00];
yields int[]
so for
struct Foo {
...}
auto x = cast(Foo[]) [0x00, 0x01,...];
you need an additional cast(ubyte[]).
Yet this doesn't work:
h
Denis Koroskin:
> "Proper" code should look like this:
> short[] t = [cast(short) 5, cast(short)3];
> which is err... I'll let someone else to decide. Just imagine there are
> ten (or more) values in an array literal.
What's wrong with just (D2 code):
short[] a3 = [5, 3];
Bye,
bearophile
37 matches
Mail list logo
