Walter Bright дµ½:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
* making static arrays value types. The kind of hybrid/weird reference
type it was before was but a relic from C days, it did not add value to
the language, on the contrary...
Thinking about it, I and others thought that static arrays
dolive:
template+range£¬can or cannot
make the syntax simpler then?
thanks !
will you please
I don't understand.
Bye,
bearophile
bearophile дµ½:
dolive:
template+range£¬can or cannot
make the syntax simpler then?
thanks !
will you please
I don't understand.
Bye,
bearophile
template + range syntax too complexity, hope that more simple.
thanks!
On 16/02/2011 18:15, Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:
2011/2/16 Bruno Medeirosbrunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail:
We must not be saying (or thinking) the same thing then, because I do think
it is worthwhile to have orthogonality as one of the primary design goals.
I believe we are still not thinking of
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
* making static arrays value types. The kind of hybrid/weird reference
type it was before was but a relic from C days, it did not add value to
the language, on the contrary...
Thinking about it, I and others thought that static arrays logically should
behave like
On 10/02/2011 21:38, Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:
2011/2/10 Bruno Medeirosbrunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail:
I'm very much a fan of simple and orthogonal languages. But this statement
has a big problem: it's not clear what one actually considers to be simple
and orthogonal. What people consider to be
On 11/02/2011 03:08, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Bruno Medeirosbrunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail wrote in message
news:ij1guf$694$1...@digitalmars.com...
You guys are way on the wrong track here.
I'm very much a fan of simple and orthogonal languages. But this statement
has a big problem: it's not
2011/2/16 Bruno Medeiros brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail:
We must not be saying (or thinking) the same thing then, because I do think
it is worthwhile to have orthogonality as one of the primary design goals.
I believe we are still not thinking of orthogonality in the same way. You
seem to be
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:38:03 +0100, Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:
2011/2/10 Bruno Medeiros brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail:
I'm very much a fan of simple and orthogonal languages. But this
statement has a big problem: it's not clear what one actually considers
to be simple and orthogonal. What people
Am 09.02.2011 23:56, schrieb Ulrik Mikaelsson:
Maybe it's [JavaScript] the ASM of next decade.
Bringing the performance of the second last decades systems to hardware of the
next decade.
Hooray \o/
On 02/10/2011 10:08 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Regarding Java 1.3/1.4: They may very well have been closer to 1.2 than they
were to 1.5/1.6 (I wouldn't know), but IIRC 1.3 was when it finally started
to give people little bits of suger (ex: foreach).
1.5 was when Java got foreach, generics,
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
1.5 was when Java got foreach, generics, and enum. I don't think there
were any syntactical language changes before that. Previous version
updates were mostly about libraries and frameworks.
Inner classes were added earlier.
Daniel Gibson metalcae...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:ij3iru$k6k$2...@digitalmars.com...
Am 09.02.2011 23:56, schrieb Ulrik Mikaelsson:
Maybe it's [JavaScript] the ASM of next decade.
Bringing the performance of the second last decades systems to hardware of
the
next decade.
Hooray
On 02/09/2011 11:43 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Although I do like the inverse approach that D ended up taking: Don't bother
with simplicity/orthogonality at first, just get important features in.
*Then* refactor the internals to shuffle the complexity into the std lib and
simplify the core
You guys are way on the wrong track here.
I'm very much a fan of simple and orthogonal languages. But this
statement has a big problem: it's not clear what one actually considers
to be simple and orthogonal. What people consider to be orthogonal
can vary not only a little, but actually a lot.
You guys are way on the wrong track here.
I'm very much a fan of simple and orthogonal languages. But this
statement has a big problem: it's not clear what one actually considers
to be simple and orthogonal. What people consider to be orthogonal
can vary not only a little, but actually a lot.
2011/2/10 Bruno Medeiros brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail:
I'm very much a fan of simple and orthogonal languages. But this statement
has a big problem: it's not clear what one actually considers to be simple
and orthogonal. What people consider to be orthogonal can vary not only a
little, but
Bruno Medeiros brunodomedeiros+spam@com.gmail wrote in message
news:ij1guf$694$1...@digitalmars.com...
You guys are way on the wrong track here.
I'm very much a fan of simple and orthogonal languages. But this statement
has a big problem: it's not clear what one actually considers to be
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:iicfaa$23j7$1...@digitalmars.com...
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fdqdn/google_go_just_got_major_win32_treats_now/c1f62a0
You'd think that things like JS, Haskell, LISP and Java circa v1.2 would
have taught people
On 02/09/2011 02:01 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Walter Brightnewshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:iicfaa$23j7$1...@digitalmars.com...
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fdqdn/google_go_just_got_major_win32_treats_now/c1f62a0
You'd think that things like JS, Haskell, LISP
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:iicfaa$23j7$1...@digitalmars.com...
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fdqdn/google_go_just_got_major_win32_treats_now/c1f62a0
You'd think that things like JS, Haskell, LISP and Java circa v1.2
spir denis.s...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1424.1297260589.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 02/09/2011 02:01 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Walter Brightnewshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:iicfaa$23j7$1...@digitalmars.com...
2011/2/9 spir denis.s...@gmail.com:
Yop! this said, I recently read (no pointer, sorry) about a possibly
interesting third way: making the core language as close to orthogonal as
possible w/o making the rest difficult, then build compromises as sugar
layers around (syntactic semantic).
This
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Funny though, right after I posted You'd think that things like JS..., the
obvious devil's-advocate counter-argument occurred to me: You'd think that
things like C++ and Algol would have taught people that complex languages
are a stupid way to go. Oh well.
What matters
Ulrik Mikaelsson ulrik.mikaels...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1430.1297292203.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Maybe [JS is] the ASM of next decade.
There's been a lot of buzz about that. It's a thought I find horrifying.
Hellraiser? Very cool. Child's Play? Downright *funny*
I had the oportunity to watch a presentation from Nikolaus Wirth, back in
2003, when I was at CERN.
One of the reasons that prevented Oberon to get better audience was the
tunnel
vision of its ETHZ creators.
I remember that they were talking about it as it is the best language in the
world,
bearophile wrote:
Walter:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fdqdn/google_go_just_got_major_win32_treats_now/c1f62a0
I have one comment about one thing said by bnolsen:
Simplicity + Orthogonality == win.
Then why has not Lisp won over all competition years ago?
2011/2/3 Jérôme M. Berger jeber...@free.fr:
Then why has not Lisp won over all competition years ago?
Jerome
You mean why(not(has(won(lisp,all(competition)),years_ago))) ?
Jokes aside, I think people in language-debates often forget that
high-level languages are really
Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:
The purpose of higher-level languages is to encourage good
programming style and readability. Period. The syntax is crucial here,
it determines which constructs will become readable, and which won't,
which in turn determines the mind-set of the programmer. Which is why
I
Jokes aside, I think people in language-debates often forget that
high-level languages are really just layers of syntactical sugar over
machine-code. ASM is syntactical sugar over machince-code, C is
syntactical sugar over ASM, and D is mostly syntactic sugar over C.
They are merely ways to
On 02/03/2011 07:16 PM, Ulrik Mikaelsson wrote:
2011/2/3 Jérôme M. Bergerjeber...@free.fr:
Then why has not Lisp won over all competition years ago?
Jerome
You mean why(not(has(won(lisp,all(competition)),years_ago))) ?
Jokes aside, I think people in language-debates
On 02/03/2011 07:43 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
That's one way to put it. I view a programming language as a way to map the way
humans think into the way the machine works. Orthogonal languages have a
mathematical simplicity to them, but (as one quickly discovers when trying to
implement a good
spir denis.s...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:mailman.1206.1296697460.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
On 02/02/2011 10:37 PM, bearophile wrote:
If a person looks at the history of computer languages, she sees
thousands of languages. Many of them were lot of work to be created, and
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fdqdn/google_go_just_got_major_win32_treats_now/c1f62a0
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote in message
news:iicfaa$23j7$1...@digitalmars.com...
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fdqdn/google_go_just_got_major_win32_treats_now/c1f62a0
Wow, dumbass Google fanboys are just pouring out of the woodworks.
Walter:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fdqdn/google_go_just_got_major_win32_treats_now/c1f62a0
If a person looks at the history of computer languages, she sees thousands of
languages. Many of them were lot of work to be created, and most of them have
failed, over and over again.
Walter:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fdqdn/google_go_just_got_major_win32_treats_now/c1f62a0
I have one comment about one thing said by bnolsen:
Simplicity + Orthogonality == win.
What I want most is the language features to be implemented in a clean way,
with a clear
On 02/03/2011 12:31 AM, bearophile wrote:
Walter:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/fdqdn/google_go_just_got_major_win32_treats_now/c1f62a0
I have one comment about one thing said by bnolsen:
Simplicity + Orthogonality == win.
I would like people who state such phrases to all
On 02/02/2011 10:37 PM, bearophile wrote:
If a person looks at the history of computer languages, she sees thousands of
languages. Many of them were lot of work to be created, and most of them have
failed, over and over again. This has happened even to languages better than
many other
39 matches
Mail list logo
