On Saturday, 11 February 2012 at 02:13:19 UTC, Tim Krimm wrote:
If you make a subset of D, it would most likely be named
Mini-D. But at that point you've got an enhanced C without
going C++.
Yes and that probably would be better than what I have now.
Going back and forth programming in C/C++
On 02/10/2012 11:02 AM, Tim Krimm wrote:
We have C and C++
How about D- and D?
D- would be the have a similar use as today's C compilers.
===
Why create this language?
===
Well I would love to have a D compiler that supports microcontrollers.
Th
On 2/10/2012 8:13 PM, Tim Krimm wrote:
If you make a subset of D, it would most likely be named Mini-D. But
at that point you've got an enhanced C without going C++.
Yes and that probably would be better than what I have now.
Going back and forth programming in C/C++ today,
and then switching
This is all just speculation, but I think you get the picture.
If you make a subset of D, it would most likely be named
Mini-D. But at that point you've got an enhanced C without
going C++.
Also computer chips are becoming more powerful every day.
I think we will soon be needing better tools.
On Saturday, 11 February 2012 at 01:46:26 UTC, Era Scarecrow
wrote:
What are your thoughts?
There is no way you get a D application into 64K. The language
is not powerful enough. Only C can achieve that.
I'll need to agree. Porting D to a smaller memory space and
with cramped features in al
On Saturday, 11 February 2012 at 01:31:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Sorry for the double-post; I have asked the same question on
D.learn earlier but I think this is more of a question to this
forum.
Tested on Ubuntu 11.10 64-bit dmd.
The following program gets stuck during the writeln() call.
On Saturday, 11 February 2012 at 00:58:53 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 10.02.2012, 20:02 Uhr, schrieb Tim Krimm :
What are your thoughts?
There is no way you get a D application into 64K. The language
is not powerful enough. Only C can achieve that.
It seems to me that if you are only using
If you make a subset of D, it would most likely be named
Mini-D. But at that point you've got an enhanced C without
going C++.
Yes and that probably would be better than what I have now.
Going back and forth programming in C/C++ today,
and then switching back to D tomorrow.
Let me see if I re
What are your thoughts?
There is no way you get a D application into 64K. The language
is not powerful enough. Only C can achieve that.
I'll need to agree. Porting D to a smaller memory space and with
cramped features in all of this is not going to be good no matter
how you look at it. I'm
Sorry for the double-post; I have asked the same question on D.learn
earlier but I think this is more of a question to this forum.
Tested on Ubuntu 11.10 64-bit dmd.
The following program gets stuck during the writeln() call.
- Note that the foo() call alone works fine.
- Also note that the p
On 02/11/2012 01:51 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
As an exercise in D programming, I'm writing a D lexer from scratch,
based on the online specs posted on DPLO. I'm running into what looks
like a discrepancy between the specs and compiler behaviour (I'm using
gdc-4.6.2):
Spec says:
DecimalFloat:
Jonathan M Davis:
> I just can't stand the idea that whether an if statement is true or not could
> change the type of a variable (e.g. it's set to a string in one branch and an
> int in the other).
You have found something that sometimes I like to do in Python, that I can't do
in D, a reduced
Am 10.02.2012, 20:02 Uhr, schrieb Tim Krimm :
What are your thoughts?
There is no way you get a D application into 64K. The language is not
powerful enough. Only C can achieve that.
As an exercise in D programming, I'm writing a D lexer from scratch,
based on the online specs posted on DPLO. I'm running into what looks
like a discrepancy between the specs and compiler behaviour (I'm using
gdc-4.6.2):
Spec says:
DecimalFloat:
LeadingDecimal .
Le
On Saturday, February 11, 2012 00:40:39 Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 12:26 AM, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >> On Friday, February 10, 2012 16:36:48 Robert Jacques wrote:
> >>> These functions are _constructors_; ideally, they should be
> >>> expressed as such. In a man
On 02/11/2012 12:26 AM, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, February 10, 2012 16:36:48 Robert Jacques wrote:
These functions are _constructors_; ideally, they should be expressed as
such. In a managed language, we'd probably for with UUID("random",...).
And if explicit te
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2012 16:36:48 Robert Jacques wrote:
>> These functions are _constructors_; ideally, they should be expressed as
>> such. In a managed language, we'd probably for with UUID("random",...).
>> And if explicit template ctors were valid syntax, we'd use
On Friday, February 10, 2012 16:36:48 Robert Jacques wrote:
> These functions are _constructors_; ideally, they should be expressed as
> such. In a managed language, we'd probably for with UUID("random",...).
> And if explicit template ctors were valid syntax, we'd used
> UUID!"random"(...) or UUID
On Friday, 10 February 2012 at 19:02:54 UTC, Tim Krimm wrote:
We have C and C++
How about D- and D?
There has been discussion of having a compiler switch that flags
use of the GC. I'm pretty sure Walter agreed it would be good to
have. So someone needs to create a pull request so he can pull
On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>>
>> I didn't yet got around to polish my lock-free SList/DList implementations,
>> but mutexes should only become a problem with high contention when you need
>> to block.
>> You'd also would need
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:56:36 -0600, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-02-10 06:48, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:57:21 -0600, Johannes Pfau
wrote:
Thanks for your feedback! Comments below:
Am Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:40:14 -0600
schrieb "Robert Jacques" :
[snip]
All the generators h
On Friday, February 10, 2012 13:54:49 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Perhaps one solution is to simply have the compiler recognize all valid
> D constructs, but to give an error when it sees a construct not
> supported by the target platform. For example:
>
> input.d(123): Error: dynamic arrays not supported
On 2012-02-10 20:08, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Walter Bright
mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com>> wrote:
On 2/10/2012 3:10 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Typeless is great when sketching some piece of code, but you'll
way more problem
at the end.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:04:26PM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/10/12 12:54 PM, Tim Krimm wrote:
> >On Friday, 10 February 2012 at 20:21:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>On 2/10/12 11:02 AM, Tim Krimm wrote:
> >>>We have C and C++
> >>>
> >>>How about D- and D?
> >>
> >>No please.
On Friday, February 10, 2012 12:08:19 Brad Anderson wrote:
> I actually read an article recently from someone who had written large
> applications in dynamic languages and had come to the conclusion that the
> productivity gains you have with the dynamic typing are pretty much lost to
> the additio
On Friday, 10 February 2012 at 21:04:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2/10/12 12:54 PM, Tim Krimm wrote:
On Friday, 10 February 2012 at 20:21:53 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/10/12 11:02 AM, Tim Krimm wrote:
We have C and C++
How about D- and D?
No please.
Andrei
Please elabo
I would love to be able to use D on memory limited devices like arduino but
creating a whole new language would certainly add up to the confusion for
many new potential users (they can't deal with two standard library's, let
alone two language named nearly the same)
if one were to do such project I
On Friday, 10 February 2012 at 21:04:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2/10/12 12:54 PM, Tim Krimm wrote:
On Friday, 10 February 2012 at 20:21:53 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/10/12 11:02 AM, Tim Krimm wrote:
We have C and C++
How about D- and D?
No please.
Andrei
Please elabo
On 2/10/12 12:54 PM, Tim Krimm wrote:
On Friday, 10 February 2012 at 20:21:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/10/12 11:02 AM, Tim Krimm wrote:
We have C and C++
How about D- and D?
No please.
Andrei
Please elaborate.
The last thing we need is balkanization of the community. You are
On Friday, 10 February 2012 at 20:21:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2/10/12 11:02 AM, Tim Krimm wrote:
We have C and C++
How about D- and D?
No please.
Andrei
Please elaborate.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 08:02:52PM +0100, Tim Krimm wrote:
> We have C and C++
>
> How about D- and D?
[...]
Great, just what I need: a D- in programming!
:-P
T
--
PNP = Plug 'N' Pray
On 2/10/12 11:02 AM, Tim Krimm wrote:
We have C and C++
How about D- and D?
No please.
Andrei
On 02/10/2012 07:59 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
I'm copying a slice of an array into the a slice of another array. dmd
herefor emmits a call to _d_arraycopy which is defined inside arraycat.d
So I'm wondering why is the postblit constructor or assignment operator
not called for every element that
On 02/10/2012 06:49 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
On 02/05/2012 07:57 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/05/2012 03:53 PM, so wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2012 at 14:24:20 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
This should work:
#define DOTDOTDOT ...
template void fun(T a){
if(cond::value) {
auto var = make(a);
DOTDOTDOT;
On Monday, 23 January 2012 at 17:09:30 UTC, so wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:09:58 +0200, Robert Caravani
wrote:
Thanks for the links, it was a good read.
I think it is the best answer to the problem.
What's the destructor limitation?
struct S {
static S* make(); // constructor
static
On 02/10/2012 01:02 PM, Tim Krimm wrote:
We have C and C++
How about D- and D?
D- would be the have a similar use as today's C compilers.
===
Why create this language?
===
Well I would love to have a D compiler that supports microcontrollers.
Th
On 09/02/2012 22:34, bearophile wrote:
Comparing languages with small code snippets doesn't tell you all you want to
know about how a language scales for very large programs, of course, so they
aren't enough. But such small snippets are very useful any way because large
programs are mostly mad
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:07:41 +0100, deadalnix wrote:
Le 09/02/2012 20:57, Martin Nowak a écrit :
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:44:46 +0100, Sean Kelly
wrote:
So a queue per message type? How would ordering be preserved? Also,
how would this work for interprocess messaging? An array-based queue
is
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 3:10 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> Typeless is great when sketching some piece of code, but you'll way more
>> problem
>> at the end.
>>
>
> I've heard people say that typeless is just as good, because you load them
> up with unit t
We have C and C++
How about D- and D?
D- would be the have a similar use as today's C compilers.
===
Why create this language?
===
Well I would love to have a D compiler that supports
microcontrollers.
The ones that have say 32 K of RAM and 64K
I'm copying a slice of an array into the a slice of another array. dmd
herefor emmits a call to _d_arraycopy which is defined inside arraycat.d
So I'm wondering why is the postblit constructor or assignment operator
not called for every element that gets copied?
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut
On 10/02/2012 18:19, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/10/2012 3:10 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Typeless is great when sketching some piece of code, but you'll way
more problem
at the end.
I've heard people say that typeless is just as good, because you load
them up with unit tests that verify the types. To
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:19:11AM -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 3:10 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> >Typeless is great when sketching some piece of code, but you'll way more
> >problem
> >at the end.
>
> I've heard people say that typeless is just as good, because you
> load them up with un
On 2/10/2012 3:10 AM, deadalnix wrote:
Typeless is great when sketching some piece of code, but you'll way more problem
at the end.
I've heard people say that typeless is just as good, because you load them up
with unit tests that verify the types. To me, this doesn't seem like any
advantage.
lambda instead of macro?
On 02/05/2012 07:57 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/05/2012 03:53 PM, so wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2012 at 14:24:20 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
This should work:
#define DOTDOTDOT ...
template void fun(T a){
if(cond::value) {
auto var = make(a);
DOTDOTDOT;
}else{
auto tmp
GC.disable and GC.reserve are applicable. I tested with these and they did help
but not a ton.
On Feb 10, 2012, at 5:54 AM, "Oliver Plow" wrote:
>>> I wonder how much it helps to just optimize the GC a little. How much
>>> does the performance gap close when you use DMD 2.058 beta instead of
On 02/10/12 14:54, Oliver Plow wrote:
>>> I wonder how much it helps to just optimize the GC a little. How much
>>> does the performance gap close when you use DMD 2.058 beta instead of
>>> 2.057? This upcoming release has several new garbage collector
>>> optimizations. If the GC is the bottlen
Le 09/02/2012 20:57, Martin Nowak a écrit :
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:44:46 +0100, Sean Kelly
wrote:
So a queue per message type? How would ordering be preserved? Also,
how would this work for interprocess messaging? An array-based queue
is an option however (though it would mean memmoves on rece
On 2012-02-10 14:54, Oliver Plow wrote:
I wonder how much it helps to just optimize the GC a little. How much
does the performance gap close when you use DMD 2.058 beta instead of
2.057? This upcoming release has several new garbage collector
optimizations. If the GC is the bottleneck, then it
> > I wonder how much it helps to just optimize the GC a little. How much
> > does the performance gap close when you use DMD 2.058 beta instead of
> > 2.057? This upcoming release has several new garbage collector
> > optimizations. If the GC is the bottleneck, then it's not surprising
Is ther
Le 10/02/2012 05:37, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 2/9/2012 12:09 PM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
Nice article! I particularly liked this comment:
"The classic hacker disdain for “bondage and discipline languages” is
short
sighted – the needs of large, long-lived, multi-programmer projects
are just
diffe
On Friday, February 10, 2012 09:56:36 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-02-10 06:48, Robert Jacques wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:57:21 -0600, Johannes Pfau
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Thanks for your feedback! Comments below:
> >> Am Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:40:14 -0600
> >
> >> schrieb "Robert Jacques" :
On 2012-02-10 06:48, Robert Jacques wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:57:21 -0600, Johannes Pfau
wrote:
Thanks for your feedback! Comments below:
Am Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:40:14 -0600
schrieb "Robert Jacques" :
[snip]
All the generators have the function name [name]UUID. Instead, make
these functi
On 9 February 2012 09:37, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 09.02.2012 04:52, schrieb Walter Bright:
>
>> Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that
>> system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available
>> for dev/test.
>>
>> Currently, the build/test farm
On 2012-02-09 21:12, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 09.02.2012 17:20, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 2/9/2012 1:37 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I have a project that we actually plan to use in production in the
company for
which I work. They still require 10.5 support for their products so
removing
that support
55 matches
Mail list logo
