On Thursday, June 28, 2018 20:25:15 John parker via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 20:12:05 UTC, so wrote:
> > On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 18:34:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
> >
> > wrote:
> >> I would absolutely say that the gap is getting thinner. I
> >> would mostly say that
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 21:53:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
No ranges. No purity. No immutability. No modules. No dynamic
closures. No mixins. Little CTFE. No slicing. No delegates. No
shared. No template symbolic arguments. No template string
arguments. No alias this.
And tens of more
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 20:12:05 UTC, so wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 18:34:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
I would absolutely say that the gap is getting thinner. I
would mostly say that with C++11 C++ has finally started to
catch up with D and the rest of the world.
Serious?
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:46:17 -, Erèbe er...@erebe.eu wrote:
.. a Visual studio plugin where you need to buy a liscence in order to
have the IDE.
I was under the impression that VisualD worked with express versions of
Visual Studio, which are free.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary
11/6/2012 4:09 PM, Regan Heath пишет:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:46:17 -, Erèbe er...@erebe.eu wrote:
.. a Visual studio plugin where you need to buy a liscence in order to
have the IDE.
I was under the impression that VisualD worked with express versions
of Visual Studio, which are free.
It
On 2012-11-04 00:12, H. S. Teoh wrote:
My point is, there may are a lot of people with that knowledge in
the community, and a little impulsion from the root should be
helpful, because modern support will make D shine even brighter.
We *have* had repeated requests for this stuff, and I'm sure
On 2012-11-03 17:08, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I find it strange that every so often people clamor for IDE support,
syntax highlighting, debugger support, etc., yet nobody seems to be
willing to contribute actual code. Don't like something about the
current state of D development tools? Well then do
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 23:08:00 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/02/2012 10:53 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/2/2012 2:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got
foreach,
some form
of CTFE, static assert, lambda to mention a few new features.
On 11/3/2012 12:19 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 23:08:00 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
What I have learned in all my years of enterprise development is that all
those features have zero value for business.
Languages get adopted because of business value, not due to the
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 07:35:26 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 11/3/2012 12:19 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 23:08:00 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
What I have learned in all my years of enterprise development
is that all those features have zero value for business.
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 08:19:15 +0100
Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org wrote:
What I have learned in all my years of enterprise development is
that all those features have zero value for business.
Languages get adopted because of business value, not due to the
coolness of their feature set,
On 2012-11-02 22:53, Walter Bright wrote:
No ranges. No purity. No immutability. No modules. No dynamic closures.
No mixins. Little CTFE. No slicing. No delegates. No shared. No template
symbolic arguments. No template string arguments. No alias this.
Why do you think I'm here, using D
On 2012-11-02 23:47, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
No proper modules. No properties. Slow compilation. No reference
semantics for classes. No scope guards. Little default initialization.
Goofy ptr and func-ptr declaration syntax. Goofy rules about what
is/isn't virtual. Lots of undefined behavior.
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 10:33:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 08:19:15 +0100
Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org wrote:
What I have learned in all my years of enterprise development
is that all those features have zero value for business.
Languages get adopted because
To be fair though, asking C++ vs D on a D newsgroup is
clearly going
to be tilted more towards the D end ;) But yea, personally, I
feel that
C++11 is merely playing catch up, and doing so on a broken
leg.
I didn't expect that much of response to my question, but it was
my intent to see the
http://codepad.org/s38L9tUr
Am I misunderstanding something regarding C++ here?
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 02:44:49 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 02:27:21 UTC, mist wrote:
Regarding delegates - I think deal is that none of this C++
stuff can automatically capture
Erèbe:
Is there a point in the D roadmap where we will see Okay, D
has enough features, let add some support to the language now
? Because in my opinion D is for now just a language, a awesome
one yes, but not yet a good environnement for developper.
You are missing some essential points.
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 07:46:17 -0500, Erèbe er...@erebe.eu wrote:
To be fair though, asking C++ vs D on a D newsgroup is clearly going
to be tilted more towards the D end ;) But yea, personally, I feel that
C++11 is merely playing catch up, and doing so on a broken leg.
I didn't expect that
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 12:46:18 UTC, Erèbe wrote:
Nearly no support in vim (my editor of choice), a Plugin for
eclipse wich force you to stick with an older version, a Visual
studio plugin where you need to buy a liscence in order to have
the IDE. The only viable choice for me is the
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 12:56:36 UTC, mist wrote:
http://codepad.org/s38L9tUr
Am I misunderstanding something regarding C++ here?
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 02:44:49 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 02:27:21 UTC, mist wrote:
Regarding delegates - I think deal
Ye, that is exactly what I meant when said C++ has no real
context capture and thus no real delegates here.
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 15:04:25 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 12:56:36 UTC, mist wrote:
http://codepad.org/s38L9tUr
Am I misunderstanding something
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 12:46:18 UTC, Erèbe wrote:
To be fair though, asking C++ vs D on a D newsgroup is
clearly going
to be tilted more towards the D end ;) But yea, personally, I
feel that
C++11 is merely playing catch up, and doing so on a broken
leg.
I didn't expect that much of
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:02:58AM -0500, 1100110 wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 07:46:17 -0500, Erèbe er...@erebe.eu wrote:
[...]
Nearly no support in vim (my editor of choice), a Plugin for
eclipse wich force you to stick with an older version, a Visual
studio plugin where you need to buy a
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:08:16 -0500, H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
wrote:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:02:58AM -0500, 1100110 wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 07:46:17 -0500, Erèbe er...@erebe.eu wrote:
[...]
Nearly no support in vim (my editor of choice), a Plugin for
eclipse wich force you to
Geany on Linux has good D support. It seems more like an editor
than a true IDE, but it does have some project management
features and ability to execute builds.
Codeblocks is a complete feature rich C++ cross platform IDE, it
has some D support but it is incomplete last I checked.
--rt
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:23:17 -0500, Rob T r...@ucora.com wrote:
Geany on Linux has good D support. It seems more like an editor than a
true IDE, but it does have some project management features and ability
to execute builds.
Codeblocks is a complete feature rich C++ cross platform IDE, it
I'm not convinced D has caught up to C++ yet from a usability
standpoint, as the tools are still quite bad(VisualD -not- fun).
But the other day I tried out MonoD and it shows promise, auto
completion is solid, and it seems to have at least some of the
features I've come to expect from
On 11/03/2012 08:19 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 23:08:00 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 11/02/2012 10:53 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/2/2012 2:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got foreach,
some form
of CTFE, static
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 08:19:15AM +0100, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[...]
Languages get adopted because of business value, not due to the
coolness of their feature set, how boring it may sell.
If we want to sell D to companies using C++ for years, slowly
migrating to JVM, .NET worlds, or just
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 17:03:38 UTC, Erèbe wrote:
Hello student here,
I have started to learn D a few months ago with Andrei's book
(I really liked arguments about design decisions), but as the
same time I was learning new features of C++11, and now I'm
really confused. (As learning
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 13:46:17 +0100
Erèbe er...@erebe.eu wrote:
All of you name a lot of missing features in C++11, while I
completely agree upon that makes D cool, don't you fear a turtle
effect if D only focus on features ?
I explain myself, C++ is a well supported language and come with
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 15:06:36 UTC, mist wrote:
Ye, that is exactly what I meant when said C++ has no real
context capture and thus no real delegates here.
The std::function is just as real as any delegate.
And the variable capture [] is just as real as in any other
language.
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 13:17:46 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Erèbe:
Is there a point in the D roadmap where we will see Okay, D
has enough features, let add some support to the language now
? Because in my opinion D is for now just a language, a
awesome one yes, but not yet a good
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 22:01:21 UTC, Malte Skarupke
wrote:
D also makes the const keyword more annoying than it should be.
What kind of annoyances regarding const have you encountered in D?
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:01:19 +0100
Malte Skarupke malteskaru...@web.de wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 17:03:38 UTC, Erèbe wrote:
Hello student here,
I have started to learn D a few months ago with Andrei's book
(I really liked arguments about design decisions), but as the
same
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:45:58 +0100
Tommi tommitiss...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 22:01:21 UTC, Malte Skarupke
wrote:
D also makes the const keyword more annoying than it should be.
What kind of annoyances regarding const have you encountered in D?
My
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 11:37:15PM +0100, Erèbe wrote:
[...]
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 16:06:11 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yeah I use vim too, and I don't see any problem. But then again,
maybe he's looking for syntax highlighting or that kind of stuff
which I don't
use.
I only use IDE
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:12:44 -0700
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
I don't even use syntax highlighting
Now that's hard-core!
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:14:18PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:12:44 -0700
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
I don't even use syntax highlighting
Now that's hard-core!
I've *tried* using it before, mind you. I just found the colors more
distracting than
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 22:45:59 UTC, Tommi wrote:
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 22:01:21 UTC, Malte Skarupke
wrote:
D also makes the const keyword more annoying than it should be.
What kind of annoyances regarding const have you encountered in
D?
To start off it's simple things
On Saturday, November 03, 2012 09:08:16 H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yeah I use vim too, and I don't see any problem. But then again, maybe
he's looking for syntax highlighting or that kind of stuff which I don't
use.
D does syntax highlighting just fine. It's distributed with vim, and if you
want the
On 11/03/2012 11:01 PM, Malte Skarupke wrote:
...
I've learned C++ in the last two years and learned D in the last couple
months, and I slightly prefer C++ over D. When I started using C++11, I
took for granted that all the features just work.
I have run into bugs in both g++ and clang, and I
On Saturday, November 03, 2012 13:46:17 Erèbe wrote:
Nearly no support in vim (my editor of choice)
What does vim do for D that it doesn't do for C/C++? Some plugins that you can
use for C/C++ probably won't work for D, but vim itself should support D just
as well as C/C++. vim is a power user
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 18:47:22 -0400
Nick Sabalausky seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:53:05 -0700
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 11/2/2012 2:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got
Hello student here,
I have started to learn D a few months ago with Andrei's book (I
really liked arguments about design decisions), but as the same
time I was learning new features of C++11, and now I'm really
confused. (As learning projects, I've done an IRC Bot in D and an
IPv6 stack in
On 2012-11-02 18:03, Erèbe wrote:
Hello student here,
I have started to learn D a few months ago with Andrei's book (I really
liked arguments about design decisions), but as the same time I was
learning new features of C++11, and now I'm really confused. (As
learning projects, I've done an IRC
Jacob Carlborg:
I would say that D is fairly scalable in it's set of features.
You can (mostly) program in D as you would in, say, Java
D offers most features present in Java, but the relative
efficiency of some operations is not the same. HotSpot
de-virtualizes, unroll run-time-bound
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 18:34:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I would absolutely say that the gap is getting thinner. I would
mostly say that with C++11 C++ has finally started to catch up
with D and the rest of the world.
Serious? It doesn't even have a static if.
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 20:12:05 UTC, so wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 18:34:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
I would absolutely say that the gap is getting thinner. I
would mostly say that with C++11 C++ has finally started to
catch up with D and the rest of the world.
Serious?
On Friday, November 02, 2012 21:12:02 so wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 18:34:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I would absolutely say that the gap is getting thinner. I would
mostly say that with C++11 C++ has finally started to catch up
with D and the rest of the world.
Serious? It
On 2012-11-02 21:12, so wrote:
Serious? It doesn't even have a static if.
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got foreach,
some form of CTFE, static assert, lambda to mention a few new features.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 11/2/2012 2:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got foreach, some form
of CTFE, static assert, lambda to mention a few new features.
No ranges. No purity. No immutability. No modules. No dynamic closures. No
mixins. Little CTFE. No slicing.
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 21:25:49 +0100
Rob T r...@ucora.com wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 20:12:05 UTC, so wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 18:34:13 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
I would absolutely say that the gap is getting thinner. I
would mostly say that with C++11 C++ has
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 21:53:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/2/2012 2:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got
foreach, some form
of CTFE, static assert, lambda to mention a few new features.
No ranges. No purity. No immutability. No
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 22:02:04 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
So whenever D is a viable option, I always go for it because I
find it to be vastly superior, even to C++11 (which is merely
slightly less crappy than old C++, IMO). And then when I
*have* to use C++, I do so while wishing I
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:53:05 -0700
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 11/2/2012 2:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got
foreach, some form of CTFE, static assert, lambda to mention a few
new features.
No ranges. No
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 22:47:20 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
No proper modules. No properties. Slow compilation. No reference
semantics for classes. No scope guards. Little default
initialization.
Goofy ptr and func-ptr declaration syntax. Goofy rules about
what
is/isn't virtual. Lots
On 11/02/2012 10:53 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/2/2012 2:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got foreach,
some form
of CTFE, static assert, lambda to mention a few new features.
No ranges. No purity. No immutability. No modules. No dynamic
On 11/02/2012 11:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:53:05 -0700
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
On 11/2/2012 2:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got
foreach, some form of CTFE, static assert, lambda to
On 11/03/2012 12:05 AM, Rob T wrote:
With C++, you learn to accept all the crap and not complain about it so much.
Well, it's not so much you learn to accept all the crap as, it's a sufficiently
standard tool and so universally adopted, that accepting the crap is often a
worthwhile trade for
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 22:47:20 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
No polysemous literals?
Since when D has polysemous literals? Link please.
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 21:53:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/2/2012 2:33 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I said the gap is getting thinner, not that is gone. It got
foreach, some form
of CTFE, static assert, lambda to mention a few new features.
No ranges.
Boost.Range
No purity.
Regarding delegates - I think deal is that none of this C++ stuff
can automatically capture local function context with delegate,
so there are no _real_ delegates.
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 02:08:13 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
On Friday, 2 November 2012 at 21:53:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On
On Saturday, 3 November 2012 at 02:27:21 UTC, mist wrote:
Regarding delegates - I think deal is that none of this C++
stuff can automatically capture local function context with
delegate, so there are no _real_ delegates.
I don't understand what you mean...
std::functionint(int)
64 matches
Mail list logo
