Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
that s good, but maybe for a release one should also try to compile some
of the largish projects that are done in D (even al older frozen
version) to see if in larger codebases something comes up...
At least for D 1.0 on a fixed system the idea if id did compile it
should
On 2010-03-02 09:25:05 +0100, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com said:
Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
that s good, but maybe for a release one should also try to compile
some of the largish projects that are done in D (even al older frozen
version) to see if in larger codebases something comes
Walter Bright:
5. I've discovered over the years that programmers write in particular
islands of the language. No matter how large a code base they produce,
they never stray outside that island, so once the bugs they initially
encountered are fixed, they never run into compiler bugs
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
5. I've discovered over the years that programmers write in
particular islands of the language. No matter how large a code
base they produce, they never stray outside that island, so once
the bugs they initially encountered are fixed, they never run into
Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:57:13 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
5. I've discovered over the years that programmers write in particular
islands of the language. No matter how large a code base they
produce, they never stray outside that island, so once the bugs they
Walter Bright Wrote:
Bane wrote:
On the other hand, D2 carries more complexity than D1, more power at
a greater risk of potentially more dangerous programs (due to
programmers fault). As Language D homepage states, D aims to balance
simplicity and power. Seems to me D1 leans to first,
On 27-feb-10, at 15:49, Lutger wrote:
D1 has but one major advantage over D2: it is much more mature. I think D1
has a future as long as that is the case, or as long as there is a large
enough body of code depending on it. Assuming Walter Bright keeps supporting
it of course (as he has).
Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
Maybe I am painting the situation more dire than it is, but I sure got
annoyed by it, and I hope that it will be rectified soon.
More than new language features D needs stable and efficient libraries,
something that can come only if the compiler is stable enough, and at
On 3/1/2010 11:43 PM, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
On 2-mar-10, at 01:26, Walter Bright wrote:
Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
Maybe I am painting the situation more dire than it is, but I sure
got annoyed by it, and I hope that it will be rectified soon.
More than new language features D needs stable and
bearophile Wrote:
I think this comment contains a grain of truth: languages that start simple
can gain an user base, and then they can slowly grow more complex:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b74jv/scala_books_in_general_are_just_not_selling_well/
The const/nothrow/pure
I strongly disagree: Having two versions of the language can only lead
to confusion.
If there is a need for a simplified D, this should be achieved by
defining D in several levels, not just by branching off the project. The
simplified D should still evolve alongside with full D and kept in
Bane wrote:
On the other hand, D2 carries more complexity than D1, more power at
a greater risk of potentially more dangerous programs (due to
programmers fault). As Language D homepage states, D aims to balance
simplicity and power. Seems to me D1 leans to first, while D2 to
second. I see place
I think this comment contains a grain of truth: languages that start simple can
gain an user base, and then they can slowly grow more complex:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b74jv/scala_books_in_general_are_just_not_selling_well/
The const/nothrow/pure system of D2 is useful, but
bearophile wrote:
I think this comment contains a grain of truth: languages that start
simple can gain an user base, and then they can slowly grow more complex:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b74jv/scala_books_in_general_are_just_not_selling_well/
I think you need to
14 matches
Mail list logo
