On 2014-02-27 21:43, Walter Bright wrote:
This comes up now and then. The problem with it is it makes function
overloading a near impossibility to untangle.
We could quite easy add support for named parameters but still require
using the same position of the arguments. I don't know if those
Jacob Carlborg:
We could quite easy add support for named parameters but still
require using the same position of the arguments. I don't know
if those wanting named parameters would be satisfied with this
though.
I think requiring the same position of the arguments goes against
one of the
On 2014-03-01 15:19:29 +, Jacob Carlborg d...@me.com said:
On 2014-02-27 21:43, Walter Bright wrote:
This comes up now and then. The problem with it is it makes function
overloading a near impossibility to untangle.
We could quite easy add support for named parameters but still require
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:12:38 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Chris:
Every time I write something in JS, I feel like a complete
programming novice,
Probably that's part of the problem. More experience in a
language helps.
I suggest to use TypeScript (http://www.typescriptlang.org/ ),
On 2014-03-01 17:19, Michel Fortin wrote:
I did implement something like that in DMD a while ago as an experiment.
See the comments below that commit:
https://github.com/michelf/dmd/commit/673bae4982ff18a3d216bc1578f50d40f4d26d7a
I based the quite easy on the few changes needed in your
On Saturday, 1 March 2014 at 16:37:36 UTC, Asman01 wrote:
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:12:38 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Chris:
Every time I write something in JS, I feel like a complete
programming novice,
Probably that's part of the problem. More experience in a
language helps.
I
On Saturday, 1 March 2014 at 18:57:03 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
On Saturday, 1 March 2014 at 16:37:36 UTC, Asman01 wrote:
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:12:38 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Chris:
Every time I write something in JS, I feel like a complete
programming novice,
Probably that's
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 19:54:04 UTC, w0rp wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:37:51 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:20:20 UTC, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
clip
Like it or not, JavaScript is good enough.
Really? I've been stuck for the past week or
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 11:21:51 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 19:54:04 UTC, w0rp wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:37:51 UTC, Craig
Dillabaugh wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:20:20 UTC, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
clip
Like it or not, JavaScript is
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 17:16:54 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Yep, that is how for example .NET, Eiffel, Smalltalk, Lisp and
many other languages work.
An object in Smalltalk is not a primitive type. Even ints,
floats, chars, etc. in Smalltalk are no primitive types but
objects. Not
Chris:
Every time I write something in JS, I feel like a complete
programming novice,
Probably that's part of the problem. More experience in a
language helps.
I suggest to use TypeScript (http://www.typescriptlang.org/ ), it
has static types, more Java-style classes, better modules,
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:12:38 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Chris:
Every time I write something in JS, I feel like a complete
programming novice,
Probably that's part of the problem. More experience in a
language helps.
Unfortunately, you cannot get experienced in JS, there's always
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:12:38 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Chris:
Every time I write something in JS, I feel like a complete
programming novice,
Probably that's part of the problem. More experience in a
language helps.
I suggest to use TypeScript (http://www.typescriptlang.org/ ),
Am 28.02.2014 13:15, schrieb Bienlein:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 17:16:54 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Yep, that is how for example .NET, Eiffel, Smalltalk, Lisp and many
other languages work.
An object in Smalltalk is not a primitive type. Even ints, floats,
chars, etc. in Smalltalk are no
A1)
Google's Dart (https://www.dartlang.org) looks like a very promising
replacement for javascript. It can compile to javascript to ensure
portability (but chromium runs it natively) but the language itself reminds
more of D to a surprising extent. Dart language has features such as:
static
What needed to create language that can be run everywhere? I mean
would it be hard to add support of running D code in web-browser?
it's better to write all logic at one language, that on 2 or 3.
Timothee Cour:
* better way to define default constructors:
class Point {
num x;
num y;
num z;
// Syntactic sugar for setting z and x before the constructor
body runs.
Point(this.z, this.x){...}
}
This is more explicit and flexible than D's way for default
struct
constructors,
I don't like any of the syntax changes mentioned. I do like the
suggestions for better IDEs and similar tools. We can always do
more to improve these.
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 10:27:41 UTC, Timothee Cour
wrote:
A1)
Google's Dart (https://www.dartlang.org) looks like a very
promising
replacement for javascript. It can compile to javascript to
ensure
portability (but chromium runs it natively) but the language
itself reminds
more of D
On 2/27/14, 7:19 AM, Timothee Cour wrote:
And then some design decisions which wouldn't work for D: everything is
an object, no struct (just class), VM, etc.
In a programming language you can make everything look like an object
but implement it as a primitive type. So that could work in D
Am 27.02.2014 17:48, schrieb Ary Borenszweig:
On 2/27/14, 7:19 AM, Timothee Cour wrote:
And then some design decisions which wouldn't work for D: everything is
an object, no struct (just class), VM, etc.
In a programming language you can make everything look like an object
but implement it as
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 10:27:41 UTC, Timothee Cour
wrote:
A1)
Google's Dart (https://www.dartlang.org) looks like a very
promising
replacement for javascript. It can compile to javascript to
ensure
portability (but chromium runs it natively)
No, neither Chromium nor even Chrome
Am 27.02.2014 18:29, schrieb thedeemon:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 10:27:41 UTC, Timothee Cour wrote:
A1)
Google's Dart (https://www.dartlang.org) looks like a very promising
replacement for javascript. It can compile to javascript to ensure
portability (but chromium runs it natively)
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:20:20 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
clip
Like it or not, JavaScript is good enough.
Really? I've been stuck for the past week or so trying to put
together a browser based UI using JavaScript + HTML for a work
related project. It has been a painful experience.
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:37:51 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:20:20 UTC, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
clip
Like it or not, JavaScript is good enough.
Really? I've been stuck for the past week or so trying to put
together a browser based UI using
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 19:54:04 UTC, w0rp wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:37:51 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:20:20 UTC, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
clip
Like it or not, JavaScript is good enough.
Really? I've been stuck for the past week or
On 27.2.2014 20:54, w0rp wrote:
I developed 99% of the JavaScript part of an application for a year, and
I have extensive JavaScript knowledge. After all that, I wrote this.
https://w0rp.com/blog/post/javascript-sucks/
I think it was someone on Slashdot who posted this wonderful comment:
Am 27.02.2014 19:37, schrieb Craig Dillabaugh:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:20:20 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
clip
Like it or not, JavaScript is good enough.
Really? I've been stuck for the past week or so trying to put together a
browser based UI using JavaScript + HTML for a work
On 2/27/2014 2:19 AM, Timothee Cour wrote:
* optional named parameters arguments (with simplest possible syntax)
This comes up now and then. The problem with it is it makes function overloading
a near impossibility to untangle.
On 2/27/2014 2:19 AM, Timothee Cour wrote:
* import all except specified symbols:
import 'package:lib2/lib2.dart' hide foo; // Import all names EXCEPT foo.
As a general rule, negation features are frequently misunderstood, our brains
tend to just not see the negation. One should positively
On 2/27/2014 2:19 AM, Timothee Cour wrote:
* cascade operations: they perform a series of operations on the members of a
single object:
foo.bar(1)..baz(3)
equivalent to:
foo.bar(1)
foo.baz(3)
D has ranges and algorithms to conveniently chain operations.
* better way to define default
Walter Bright:
* optional named parameters arguments (with simplest possible
syntax)
This comes up now and then. The problem with it is it makes
function overloading a near impossibility to untangle.
Do you have an example of the problem?
* better way to define default constructors:
class
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.comwrote:
On 2/27/2014 2:19 AM, Timothee Cour wrote:
* cascade operations: they perform a series of operations on the members
of a
single object:
foo.bar(1)..baz(3)
equivalent to:
foo.bar(1)
foo.baz(3)
D has ranges
* better syntax for optional positional arguments:
void fun(int x, [int y, int z=3]){...}
Thinking of which, this would actually solve a long standing problem in
D, that
of specifying optional parameters AFTER a variadic template:
void fun(T...)(T args, [string file=__FILE__,int
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:40 PM, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.comwrote:
Walter Bright:
* optional named parameters arguments (with simplest possible syntax)
This comes up now and then. The problem with it is it makes function
overloading a near impossibility to untangle.
Do you have
We could kinda do named parameters today like this:
ParameterTypeTuple!foo args;
args.named_param = 3;
foo(args);
It would be nice if we could declare a variable inside a
with(auto x = foo) like we can in if() too.
* better way to define default constructors:
class Point {
num x;
num y;
num z;
// Syntactic sugar for setting z and x before the constructor body
runs.
Point(this.z, this.x){...}
}
This is more explicit and flexible than D's way for default struct
constructors,
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 19:20 +0100, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[…]
From what I understood on Dart talks last Google IO, work was planned
to have V8 and Dart VM play together inside Chrome.
Dartium is a build of Chromium with both, so this is very much the
direction that is possible.
Personally, I
38 matches
Mail list logo
