On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Robert Fraser
wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>>
>> But today most people use languages like Java, Python, C#, that often
>> shorten developing time even more than D1.
>> D1 is almost a system language, so it's not easy to compete with the
>> productivity of application
Hello Unknown,
So, really, all you want is a Visual Studio Language Service.
Jump to definition and syntax highlighting are relatively easy.
Refactoring is a bit more complex, and autocomplete is probably the
most complicated (to get right.)
Yah, I just want the hard stuff. (go figure :-)
Daniel Keep wrote:
What I want to know is why people quote multi-page messages only to add
a single line to the bottom that's only tangentially related to the
message they're responding to.
-- Daniel
Or those people who post a single line at the beginning, then a wall of quoted
text, leavi
Brad Roberts wrote:
I'm going to play devils advocate too...
struct ctor/dtor's are simplifiers. They remove a hard to explain difference
and aren't even a little bit hard to understand.
Ideally, that would be true.
But there are some wonky rules abound struct ctors, static opCall, and
stru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, 01 May 2009 06:16:28 +0200, grauzone wrote:
> By the way, why do people feel the need to "sign" their posts, even
> though the news protocol already provides a "From: " field, that not
> only makes the signature redundant, but is also be
Paul D. Anderson Wrote:
> I've had a painful couple of days myself.
>
> I've been coding in Java for the last several years, but am now working on a
> project in C++. It had been a while (8 years?) since I did any serious C++
> work and I didn't do much then. So I bought a copy of "C++ for Java
That's true, but there wasn't a lot of second-round design benefit here.
It was pretty much the same specs sent to both people. The Java
programmer continued to try to fix the crashing bugs, which were really
a design issue and not anything to do with scoping.
We used a contractor for both,
Walter Bright wrote:
Any fool can design something complicated. Genius is in finding the
underlying simplicity. For example, in C++, function overloading is done
with a very complicated set of rules and a mass of special cases. But
C++ function template overloading is done with one simple rule:
Daniel Keep wrote:
grauzone wrote:
By the way, why do people feel the need to "sign" their posts, even
though the news protocol already provides a "From: " field, that not
only makes the signature redundant, but is also better to spot, is
recognized by the news readers, and usually provides more
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:46:47 -0400, Robert Fraser
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Yes, I use reflection in some of my code, and it definitely has to come
to D sometime. At least if I wanted to port my current project to D it
would have to ;)
It's in D, just not standardized. There u
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@puremagic.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
D2 is a complex language, but it's not complex in a haphazard way. It's
complex
because it statically proves stuff about your code (const, etc), and allows
extremely powerful, generic user-defined types
Derek Parnell wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:23:52 -0400, superdan wrote:
(actually who cares what he wrote ...)
"superdan", when you grow up I'm certain that you will be an important
person. I just hope we don't have to wait too long.
On those occasions on which I've read a post by superdan,
On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:15:25 +1000, Daniel Keep wrote:
> What I want to know is why people quote multi-page messages only to add
> a single line to the bottom that's only tangentially related to the
> message they're responding to.
>
> -- Daniel
For me it has been that quoted text is hidden, a
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:20:17 -0700, Brad Roberts wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
>> == Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@puremagic.com)'s article
>>> dsimcha wrote:
D2 is a complex language, but it's not complex in a haphazard way.
It's complex
because it statically proves stuff about your
dsimcha wrote:
On the other hand, I do see a pattern here: Most of these features are things
you
only need to care about if you're writing near the tip of the pyramid, stuff
like
generic, reusable code. In fact, I've realized that my mindset when coding in D
is completely different when worki
Brad Roberts wrote:
D1 receives a steady stream of bug fixes every few weeks based on some
combination of user feedback and Walter's whims.
Lately I've also been getting a stream of patches to fix them, too!
I've had a painful couple of days myself.
I've been coding in Java for the last several years, but am now working on a
project in C++. It had been a while (8 years?) since I did any serious C++ work
and I didn't do much then. So I bought a copy of "C++ for Java Programmers" and
got stuck in. Mo
dsimcha wrote:
To me a fair assessment of whether a complex feature belongs in a language is
the
following:
Given the target audience, will the average person save more time by using the
new
feature than he/she spends learning it?
Not a bad definition.
The assumption here is that you will
Don't discount the major advantage of being a second round design and
implementation as well. I'm sure you learned a lot in the first iteration that
fed directly into not making the same set of mistakes again.
Not that D isn't the better language, but there's so many variables in
situations like
For another real world example, we had a server daemon written in Java
and it took forever, had huge problems, cost us quite a bit, etc. etc.
We decided to have the same server rewritten in D, and it took
significantly less time, works correctly according to spec, doesn't
crash/hang half as of
grauzone wrote:
> I'm using D1, but it's a bug rollercoaster. I'm claiming what D needs is
> not new spiffy features, that solve all currently known problems of the
> computer science world, but a rock stable toolchain.
Would be nice, yes.
That said, we've got buildable source for DMD now, so mo
So, really, all you want is a Visual Studio Language Service.
Jump to definition and syntax highlighting are relatively easy.
Refactoring is a bit more complex, and autocomplete is probably the most
complicated (to get right.)
It's really not impossible to write your own language service, and
Brad Roberts wrote:
grauzone wrote:
Daniel Keep wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There have been quite a few bugs in the I/O functions because the
infrastructure underneath them has gone through a few major revisions.
As Don said, D2 is an alpha and it cannot be hel
grauzone wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Wright wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There have been quite a few bugs in the I/O functions because the
infrastructure underneath them has gone through a few major revisions.
As Don said, D2 is an alpha and it cannot be he
dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@puremagic.com)'s article
>> dsimcha wrote:
>>> D2 is a complex language, but it's not complex in a haphazard way. It's
>>> complex
>>> because it statically proves stuff about your code (const, etc), and allows
>>> extremely powerful, generic u
Daniel Keep wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There have been quite a few bugs in the I/O functions because the
infrastructure underneath them has gone through a few major revisions.
As Don said, D2 is an alpha and it cannot be held to the stability
standards of a fin
== Quote from Brad Roberts (bra...@puremagic.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > D2 is a complex language, but it's not complex in a haphazard way. It's
> > complex
> > because it statically proves stuff about your code (const, etc), and allows
> > extremely powerful, generic user-defined types.
dsimcha wrote:
> D2 is a complex language, but it's not complex in a haphazard way. It's
> complex
> because it statically proves stuff about your code (const, etc), and allows
> extremely powerful, generic user-defined types. These are the kinds of things
> that most people only dream about.
Derek Parnell Wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:23:52 -0400, superdan wrote:
> (actually who cares what he wrote ...)
>
> "superdan", when you grow up I'm certain that you will be an important
> person. I just hope we don't have to wait too long.
>
> --
> Derek Parnell
> Melbourne, Australia
>
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> bearophile wrote:
> > D doesn't reduce training time compared to Java because I think you
> > need more time to learn D compared to learning Java, because Java is
> > simpler (and at the university they teach Java, so you are like
bearophile wrote:
D doesn't reduce training time compared to Java because I think you
need more time to learn D compared to learning Java, because Java is
simpler (and at the university they teach Java, so you are likely to
find/hire a person that already knows Java, but this is partially
beside
Christopher Wright wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> There have been quite a few bugs in the I/O functions because the
>> infrastructure underneath them has gone through a few major revisions.
>> As Don said, D2 is an alpha and it cannot be held to the stability
>> standards of a finished pr
Robert Fraser wrote:
Christopher Wright wrote:
- a mock object library that doesn't force me to gouge my eyes out
(which I could probably do by now)
- an ORM library comparable to NHibernate
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmocks
Not sure if the Sleeper is "comparable to NHibernate", but m
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
There have been quite a few bugs in the I/O functions because the
infrastructure underneath them has gone through a few major revisions.
As Don said, D2 is an alpha and it cannot be held to the stability
standards of a finished product.
Then I should wait a few revi
This is a post of mostly chat. If you have better things to do you can ignore
it.
Walter Bright:
> I've tried to program in Java. It takes me considerably more time to get
> things done in it. That time is lost writing much more code because it
> is a less expressive language.
I agree that D i
BCS wrote:
auto compleat, syntax highlighting, jump to definition, re factoring,
etc. ?
Ask Cristi for a more definitive answer.
Hello Walter,
BCS wrote:
Reply to Walter,
BCS wrote:
OTOH, Yah, I'd love to have D as my dev language, but I'd need the
tool chain from c#.
Check out Cristi's alpha version of D.net!
I don't care a wit what it runs on. If anything I prefer not running
on the CLR. It's the tools that ar
Lutger wrote:
I'm quite sure Walter does not prefer printf. He uses it to not depend on a
working phobos for 'printf' debugging.
Back in the early days of my C compiler, when printf wasn't working I
had to resort to putchar .
Steve Teale wrote:
Sadly, in the absence of decent development tools for D, many of us
depend on a plain old editor, and writefln() for debugging. I notice
that in Phobos, Walter tends to prefer printf(...) - go figure!
I tend to use printf for debugging because writefln requires a lot of
the
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and
shortening development time.<
I agree that this is very important. Helping the programmer avoid
bugs and helping her to follow good design practices are among the
most important qualities of a program
Don wrote:
The latest D2 Phobos is practically an alpha release. Only a couple of
weeks ago, it wouldn't compile on any extant compiler! There's just no
way that you'll get reduced project costs while using an alpha release.
I think it's also important to distinguish a language design issue th
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:23:52 -0400, superdan wrote:
(actually who cares what he wrote ...)
"superdan", when you grow up I'm certain that you will be an important
person. I just hope we don't have to wait too long.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell
Christopher Wright wrote:
- a mock object library that doesn't force me to gouge my eyes out
(which I could probably do by now)
- an ORM library comparable to NHibernate
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dmocks
Not sure if the Sleeper is "comparable to NHibernate", but my eyes are
perfectly
bearophile wrote:
But today most people use languages like Java, Python, C#, that often shorten
developing time even more than D1.
D1 is almost a system language, so it's not easy to compete with the
productivity of application languages designed to put the programmer first and
the CPU second.
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Yes, I use reflection in some of my code, and it definitely has to come
to D sometime. At least if I wanted to port my current project to D it
would have to ;)
It's in D, just not standardized. There used to be a project
"flectioned" by Thomas Khune that allowed r
BCS wrote:
Reply to Walter,
BCS wrote:
OTOH, Yah, I'd love to have D as my dev language, but I'd need the
tool chain from c#.
Check out Cristi's alpha version of D.net!
I don't care a wit what it runs on. If anything I prefer not running on
the CLR. It's the tools that are the hangup.
Reply to Walter,
BCS wrote:
OTOH, Yah, I'd love to have D as my dev language, but I'd need the
tool chain from c#.
Check out Cristi's alpha version of D.net!
I don't care a wit what it runs on. If anything I prefer not running on the
CLR. It's the tools that are the hangup.
Steve Teale Wrote:
> superdan Wrote:
>
> > Steve Teale Wrote:
> >
> > > Jason House Wrote:
> > >
> > > > Walter Bright Wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and
> > > > > shortening
> > > > > development time.
> > > >
> > > > It really hasn't wor
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
> One thing I've always admired about Walter is his willingness and
> capacity to learn new things. He once told me something that surprised
> me - that he believes many language designers don't get the power of
> templates. They w
superdan Wrote:
> Steve Teale Wrote:
>
> > Jason House Wrote:
> >
> > > Walter Bright Wrote:
> > >
> > > > D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and shortening
> > > > development time.
> > >
> > > It really hasn't worked out that way for me with D2. Here's an example
> >
Steve Teale wrote:
Jason House Wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and
shortening development time.
It really hasn't worked out that way for me with D2. Here's an
example from yesterday:
I picked up where I left off with creating a weak ref l
Steve Teale wrote:
...
> Sadly, in the absence of decent development tools for D, many of us depend
on a plain old editor, and writefln() for debugging. I notice that in
Phobos, Walter tends to prefer printf(...) - go figure!
I'm quite sure Walter does not prefer printf. He uses it to not depen
Steve Teale Wrote:
> Jason House Wrote:
>
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> >
> > > D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and shortening
> > > development time.
> >
> > It really hasn't worked out that way for me with D2. Here's an example from
> > yesterday:
> >
> > I picked up
Jason House Wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
> > D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and shortening
> > development time.
>
> It really hasn't worked out that way for me with D2. Here's an example from
> yesterday:
>
> I picked up where I left off with creating a weak ref
bearophile Wrote:
> Walter Bright:
> >D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and shortening
> >development time.<
>
> I agree that this is very important. Helping the programmer avoid bugs and
> helping her to follow good design practices are among the most important
> qualit
Jason House wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and shortening
development time.
It really hasn't worked out that way for me with D2. Here's an example from
yesterday:
I picked up where I left off with creating a weak ref library, something
Walter Bright Wrote:
> D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and shortening
> development time.
It really hasn't worked out that way for me with D2. Here's an example from
yesterday:
I picked up where I left off with creating a weak ref library, something most
other GC'd l
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:50:12 -0400, Christopher Wright
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can't wait for D to take over the world, so I no longer have to write
in this horrid language ;)
C# is pretty reasonable. I see a fair number of things in recent
versions that have been in D for
Walter Bright:
>D aims to reduce project costs by reducing training time and shortening
>development time.<
I agree that this is very important. Helping the programmer avoid bugs and
helping her to follow good design practices are among the most important
qualities of a programming language, be
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
I'm lucky, I'm a technical lead/manager at work, so I get to say "for
this project, we're using D." And then it happens. Muhahaha. We're a
small shop but I enjoy my small amount of power.
I could do that, but D is lacking essentials for me:
- a message bus that i
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can't wait for D to take over the world, so I no longer have to write
in this horrid language ;)
C# is pretty reasonable. I see a fair number of things in recent
versions that have been in D for a while, and some other vaguely neat
things that D doesn't have on o
Yep. D does a good job of that.
One project we ended up walking away having completed the project in
1/5th the estimated hours (we use a blended rate, so in the end, hours
are all we care about) that was partially in D.
It just takes people realizing this. And, some libraries will come from
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
I know other
managers at my company have no problem with it, as long as we can find
other people who know the language it's less expensive to use D. That's
really the most important thing.
You nailed the bottom line - total cost of a project.
D aims to reduce proj
BCS wrote:
OTOH, Yah, I'd love to have D as my dev language, but I'd need the tool
chain from c#.
Check out Cristi's alpha version of D.net!
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:01:17 -0400, BCS wrote:
Hello Steven,
The sole purpose of this enum is so I can have something reasonable
when iterating through the values in a dictionary instead of:
foreach(KeyValuePair kvp in myDictionary)
IIRC this works
foreach(ValueType v in myDictionary.Val
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:04:43 +0200, Unknown W. Brackets
wrote:
I'm lucky, I'm a technical lead/manager at work, so I get to say "for
this project, we're using D." And then it happens. Muhahaha. We're a
small shop but I enjoy my small amount of power.
Soon it will happen, just have to l
I'm lucky, I'm a technical lead/manager at work, so I get to say "for
this project, we're using D." And then it happens. Muhahaha. We're a
small shop but I enjoy my small amount of power.
Soon it will happen, just have to lay in the ground work. I know other
managers at my company have no
Hello Steven,
The sole purpose of this enum is so I can have something reasonable
when iterating through the values in a dictionary instead of:
foreach(KeyValuePair kvp in myDictionary)
IIRC this works
foreach(ValueType v in myDictionary.Values)
but I can't check that right now
OTOH, Yah,
I've written this handy template in C# called DictionaryValueEnum. It
returns an Enumerator for a Dictionary that enumerates only the values.
The sole purpose of this enum is so I can have something reasonable when
iterating through the values in a dictionary instead of:
foreach(KeyValuePa
69 matches
Mail list logo
