Walter Bright wrote:
nobody wrote:
Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
He dislikes C++ b/c it has many ab
BCS Wrote:
> Hello Andrej,
>
> > And when D3 comes out, you'll be waiting for D4? I don't understand
> > your posts mentioning D3. I mean, D2 isn't even finalized yet
> > (right?), and you're already treating the language like it came out 50
> > years ago and needs to be abandoned.
> >
>
> I ge
Hello Andrej,
And when D3 comes out, you'll be waiting for D4? I don't understand
your posts mentioning D3. I mean, D2 isn't even finalized yet
(right?), and you're already treating the language like it came out 50
years ago and needs to be abandoned.
I get the impression that some of the peo
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> He seems to particularly dislike function overloading which is not only part
> of D but pretty integral to object-oriented programming in general
Fantom doesn't support function overloading.
nobody wrote:
Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
He dislikes C++ b/c it has many abstraction.
This is a
Alex Makhotin wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
When you've built up such a store in one language, it would take an
incredible push to change.
Linux kernel is a large monolithic monster, one single bug can bring the
system down.
So considering this, Linus is right. He afraid of one single languag
Walter Bright wrote:
When you've built up such a
store in one language, it would take an incredible push to change.
Linux kernel is a large monolithic monster, one single bug can bring the
system down.
So considering this, Linus is right. He afraid of one single language
feature may be the
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
He seems to particularly dislike function overloading which is not only part
of D but pretty integral to object-oriented programming in general, so my
guess is that he wouldn't be all that enthused with any object-oriented
language. At minimium, it would have to give him
Walter Bright wrote:
> nobody wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
>>
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
>>
>>
>> He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
>> He dislikes C++ b
nobody wrote:
Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
He dislikes C++ b/c it has many abstraction.
I think so
Walter Bright Wrote:
> I posted a comment. We'll see.
>
> http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110634&threadid=110549&roomid=2
Linus wants a readable language. D is designed to be writable. You gave him the
wrong tool.
Walter Bright wrote:
> nobody wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
>> http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
>>
>>
>> He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
>> He dislikes C++ b/c i
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> bearophile Wrote:
>
>> Walter Bright:
>>> I posted a comment. We'll see.
>>> http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110634&threadid=110549&roomid=2
>>
>> This is a part of what Linus said about C++:
>>> It tries to solve all the wrong problems, and
>
bearophile wrote:
> Walter Bright:
>> I posted a comment. We'll see.
>> http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110634&threadid=110549&roomid=2
>
> This is a part of what Linus said about C++:
>> It tries to solve all the wrong problems, and
>> does not tackle the right ones.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 12:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> nobody wrote:
>>> Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
>>> http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
>>>
>>>
>>> He wants a language that contex
Walter Bright wrote:
> nobody wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
>> http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
>>
>>
>> He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
>> He dislikes C++ b/c i
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella, el 9 de junio a las 11:37 me escribiste:
>> Pelle, el 9 de junio a las 13:28 me escribiste:
Yes, I agree that "safety" is the best argument in favour of
exceptions (as explicitness is the best argument in favour of
no-exceptions). The P
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Leandro Lucarella" wrote in message
> news:20100609162223.gc16...@burns.springfield.home...
>>
>> BTW, here is a PhD thesis with a case against exceptions. I didn't
>> read it (just have a peek) and it's rather old (1982), so it might
>> be not that interesting, but I tho
bearophile Wrote:
> Walter Bright:
> > I posted a comment. We'll see.
> > http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110634&threadid=110549&roomid=2
>
> This is a part of what Linus said about C++:
> > It tries to solve all the wrong problems, and
> > does not tackle the right
nobody wrote:
Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
He dislikes C++ b/c it has many abstraction.
I think so
Walter Bright:
> I posted a comment. We'll see.
> http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110634&threadid=110549&roomid=2
This is a part of what Linus said about C++:
> It tries to solve all the wrong problems, and
> does not tackle the right ones. The things C++ "solves"
>
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 06/10/2010 12:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
I posted a comment. We'll see.
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110634&threadid=110549&roomid=2
I fear that's not going to go anywhere interesting. Linus makes a
sensible point. You do, to
On 06/10/2010 12:36 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
nobody wrote:
Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
He dislikes
nobody wrote:
Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
He dislikes C++ b/c it has many abstraction.
I think so
Linus Torvalds shows his opinion about why he chooses C here:
http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=110618&threadid=110549&roomid=2
He wants a language that context-free, simple, down to the metal.
He dislikes C++ b/c it has many abstraction.
I think some D experts shoul
> "[Bugs (ie, cases where the program deviates from its specification)] should
> be corrected before the program is delivered, not handled while it is being
> run."
>
> HA HA HA HA HA!!! (/Wipes tear/) AHH HA HA HA HA HA
>
> Translation: He seems to be living in lala-bizarro-land where the
"Leandro Lucarella" wrote in message
news:20100609162223.gc16...@burns.springfield.home...
>
> BTW, here is a PhD thesis with a case against exceptions. I didn't read
> it (just have a peek) and it's rather old (1982), so it might be not
> that interesting, but I thought posting it here as the th
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 06:28 AM, Pelle wrote:
> > On 06/09/2010 01:04 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >> Bane, el 8 de junio a las 14:42 me escribiste:
> > Is a trade-off. When you don't handle the errors, exceptions might be
> > a win, but when you do handle them, I'm n
On 06/09/2010 11:14 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 9 de junio a las 09:52 me escribiste:
That's what I like the most about exceptions. I think try/catch is
really ugly though. There has to be something better.
Careful use of scope(exit) and simply avoiding catching exce
Leandro Lucarella, el 9 de junio a las 11:37 me escribiste:
> Pelle, el 9 de junio a las 13:28 me escribiste:
> > >Yes, I agree that "safety" is the best argument in favour of exceptions
> > >(as explicitness is the best argument in favour of no-exceptions). The
> > >Python Zen put it this way:
>
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 9 de junio a las 09:52 me escribiste:
> >>That's what I like the most about exceptions. I think try/catch is
> >>really ugly though. There has to be something better.
> >>
> >
> >Careful use of scope(exit) and simply avoiding catching exceptions works
> >well for me. Except
Pelle, el 9 de junio a las 13:28 me escribiste:
> >Yes, I agree that "safety" is the best argument in favour of exceptions
> >(as explicitness is the best argument in favour of no-exceptions). The
> >Python Zen put it this way:
> >
> >Errors should never pass silently.
> >Unless explicitly silence
On 06/09/2010 06:28 AM, Pelle wrote:
On 06/09/2010 01:04 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Bane, el 8 de junio a las 14:42 me escribiste:
Is a trade-off. When you don't handle the errors, exceptions might be
a win, but when you do handle them, I'm not so sure. And again, I'm
not
saying I particularl
On 06/09/2010 01:04 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Bane, el 8 de junio a las 14:42 me escribiste:
Is a trade-off. When you don't handle the errors, exceptions might be
a win, but when you do handle them, I'm not so sure. And again, I'm not
saying I particularly like one more than the other, I don
On 6/8/10, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> That's what I like the most about exceptions. I think try/catch is
> really ugly though. There has to be something better.
Isn't there actually a function buried somewhere in Phobos that
translates exceptions into return values?
Yes, there is: http://dpldocs
Bane, el 8 de junio a las 14:42 me escribiste:
> > > Is a trade-off. When you don't handle the errors, exceptions might be
> > > a win, but when you do handle them, I'm not so sure. And again, I'm not
> > > saying I particularly like one more than the other, I don't have a
> > > strong opinion =)
Jérôme M. Berger Wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Ali Ãehreli, el 7 de junio a las 14:41 me escribiste:
> >> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >>
> >>> Go doesn't have exceptions, so scope(failure/success) makes no sense.
> >>> You can argue about if not having exceptions is good or bad (I don't
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Ali Çehreli, el 7 de junio a las 14:41 me escribiste:
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>
>>> Go doesn't have exceptions, so scope(failure/success) makes no sense.
>>> You can argue about if not having exceptions is good or bad (I don't
>>> have a strong opinion about it, som
Jesse Phillips:
> Thanks, the important thing to note is that D can do what Go was doing in
> the example, Sorry bearophile.
First, don't be sorry, I am using D2 instead of Go. If you show me D2 is better
I am happy :-)
Second, saying that D2 can do something is not so interesting, because D2
Thanks, the important thing to note is that D can do what Go was doing in
the example, Sorry bearophile.
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:55:06 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 06/07/2010 07:44 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:13:36 -0400, bearophile wrote:
>>
>>> At 9.30 you can
Ali Çehreli, el 7 de junio a las 14:41 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>
> >Go doesn't have exceptions, so scope(failure/success) makes no sense.
> >You can argue about if not having exceptions is good or bad (I don't
> >have a strong opinion about it, sometimes I feel exceptions are ni
On 06/07/2010 07:44 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:13:36 -0400, bearophile wrote:
At 9.30 you can see the switch used on a type type :-) You can see a
similar example here:
http://golang.org/src/pkg/exp/datafmt/datafmt.go Look for the line
switch t := fexpr.(type) {
...
Bye,
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 18:13:36 -0400, bearophile wrote:
> At 9.30 you can see the switch used on a type type :-) You can see a
> similar example here:
> http://golang.org/src/pkg/exp/datafmt/datafmt.go Look for the line
> switch t := fexpr.(type) {
>
> ...
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
That isn't a type t
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Go doesn't have exceptions, so scope(failure/success) makes no sense.
You can argue about if not having exceptions is good or bad (I don't
have a strong opinion about it, sometimes I feel exceptions are nice,
sometimes I think they are evil), though.
Just to compare th
Adam Ruppe, el 7 de junio a las 11:30 me escribiste:
> On 6/7/10, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > Yes, they are not implemented exactly the same, but the concept is very
> > similar. And I agree that scope is really a life saver, it makes life
> > much easier and code much more readable.
>
> There
Bill Baxter wrote:
Probably so. What's cenforce do anyway?
private T cenforce(T, string file = __FILE__, uint line = __LINE__)
(T condition, lazy const(char)[] name)
{
if (!condition)
{
throw new FileException(
text("In ", file, "(", line, "), data file ", name), .
Adam Ruppe wrote:
On 6/7/10, Bill Baxter wrote:
Hmm, but I can actually understand your code. :-(
The confusing part is probably cenforce, which is a little helper
function in the std.file module.
cenforce(condition, filename) is the same as
The tldr version of what cenforce does is conv
On 6/7/10, Bill Baxter wrote:
> Hmm, but I can actually understand your code. :-(
The confusing part is probably cenforce, which is a little helper
function in the std.file module.
cenforce(condition, filename) is the same as
if( ! condition)
throw new FileException(filename, __FILE__, __LI
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
>
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, but I can actually understand your code. :-(
>
> Yeah, but how long would it take you to be sure that it is handling all
> errors correctly and cleaning up properly in case of those errors? It'd
> probably t
Bill Baxter wrote:
Hmm, but I can actually understand your code. :-(
Yeah, but how long would it take you to be sure that it is handling all errors
correctly and cleaning up properly in case of those errors? It'd probably take
me at least 5 intensive minutes. But in the scope version, once y
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> Adam Ruppe wrote:
>
>> That sucks hard. I prefer it to finally{} though, since finally
>> doesn't scale as well in code complexity (it'd do fine in this case,
>> but not if there were nested transactions), but both suck compared to
>> the sca
Andrei Alexandrescu:
> Which part of the talk conveyed to you that information?
After thinking well about this question, my conclusion is that I was not just
(as usual) wrong, I was trolling: I didn't know what I was talking about. I am
sorry. I have not even programmed in Go.
Bye,
bearophile
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:hujd7m$11g...@digitalmars.com...
> Adam Ruppe wrote:
>> That sucks hard. I prefer it to finally{} though, since finally
>> doesn't scale as well in code complexity (it'd do fine in this case,
>> but not if there were nested transactions), but both suck compar
Adam Ruppe wrote:
That sucks hard. I prefer it to finally{} though, since finally
doesn't scale as well in code complexity (it'd do fine in this case,
but not if there were nested transactions), but both suck compared to
the scalable, beautiful, and *correct* elegance of D's scope guards.
I agr
On 6/7/10, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Yes, they are not implemented exactly the same, but the concept is very
> similar. And I agree that scope is really a life saver, it makes life
> much easier and code much more readable.
There is one important difference though: Go doesn't seem to have
scope(
Adam Ruppe, el 6 de junio a las 21:24 me escribiste:
> On 6/6/10, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > It looks like Go now have scope (exit) =)
>
> Not quite the same (defer is apparently only on function level), but
> definitely good to have. The scope statements are awesome beyond
> belief.
Yes, the
On 06/07/2010 09:02 AM, Kagamin wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
You get to choose at design time whether you use~OOP for a
particular type, in which case you use \kidx{class}; otherwise,
you go with @struct@ and forgo the particular~OOP amenities that go
hand in hand with reference se
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> You get to choose at design time whether you
> use~OOP for a particular type, in which case you use \kidx{class};
> otherwise, you go with @struct@ and forgo the particular~OOP amenities
> that go hand in hand with reference semantics.
>
Good, but this is about
On 06/07/2010 06:36 AM, Kagamin wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
I think an honest discussion - as I hope is the tone in TDPL -
serves the language and its users better than giving half of the
story.
An honest advertisement is an unusual thing. I saw none. You think,
TDPL is the first one. T
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> I think
> an honest discussion - as I hope is the tone in TDPL - serves the
> language and its users better than giving half of the story.
>
An honest advertisement is an unusual thing. I saw none. You think, TDPL is the
first one. There're many features in other la
On 06/06/2010 05:13 PM, bearophile wrote:
A recent talk about Go, Google I/O 2010 - Go Programming, the real
talk stops at about 33 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleDevelopers#p/u/9/jgVhBThJdXc
At 9.30 you can see the switch used on a type type :-) You can see a
similar example here:
h
Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
> It looks like Go now have scope (exit) =)
>
> http://golang.org/doc/go_spec.html#DeferStmt
>
And in order to execute block of statements you must make compiler happy:
// f returns 1
func f() (result int) {
defer func() {
result++
}()
On 6/6/10, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> It looks like Go now have scope (exit) =)
Not quite the same (defer is apparently only on function level), but
definitely good to have. The scope statements are awesome beyond
belief.
Adam Ruppe, el 6 de junio a las 19:06 me escribiste:
> On 6/6/10, bearophile wrote:
> > At 9.30 you can see the switch used on a type type :-)
> > You can see a similar example here:
> > http://golang.org/src/pkg/exp/datafmt/datafmt.go
>
> That example looks really similar to the D1 "D-style Var
On 6/6/10, bearophile wrote:
> At 9.30 you can see the switch used on a type type :-)
> You can see a similar example here:
> http://golang.org/src/pkg/exp/datafmt/datafmt.go
That example looks really similar to the D1 "D-style Variadic
Functions" example here: http://digitalmars.com/d/1.0/functi
Slides:
http://dl.google.com/googleio/2010/tech-talks-go-programming.pdf
Reddit thread:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cc2wf/go_language_google_io/
A recent talk about Go, Google I/O 2010 - Go Programming, the real talk stops
at about 33 minutes:
http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleDevelopers#p/u/9/jgVhBThJdXc
At 9.30 you can see the switch used on a type type :-)
You can see a similar example here:
http://golang.org/src/pkg/exp/datafmt/datafm
67 matches
Mail list logo
