http://dave.cheney.net/2012/09/03/another-go-at-the-next-big-language
Hacker news discussion
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4468731
Reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/z9ltl/another_go_at_the_next_big_language/
Michal Minich:
http://dave.cheney.net/2012/09/03/another-go-at-the-next-big-language
Hacker news discussion
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4468731
Reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/z9ltl/another_go_at_the_next_big_language/
An interesting quotation from the various threads
On 18/10/2010 19:45, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:36:57 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote:
...bury the hatch and...
Sorry, I can't let this one pass... bury the *hatchet* :)
This isn't Lost.
-Steve
LOOOL
Oh man, I miss that
Walter Bright wrote:
Bearophile,
how about it? Or at a bear (!) minimum, how about writing a series of
articles?
I promise to translate them to Turkish promptly. :)
Ali
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
there really aren't any beginner books/tutorials
that I know of that target D2 yet (maybe one of those published
Japanese/Turkish ones do target newbies..?).
Thanks for the recognition. :)
The Turkish tutorial targets the novice and attempts to teach
programming with
Sorry but all of them are just names for the same thing.
The template metaprogramming that is possibile in C++ is actually due to
some loopholes
in the language definition. In the old days there were some articles in the
C++ Report
when this technique was discovered.
D does provide a better
Gary Whatmore wrote:
What's the difference between:
type polymorphism
parametric polymorphism
ad-hoc polymorphism
generics
c++ templates
d style templates
other templates (are there?)
Does Java and C# have type polymorphism or generics or templates? What's
the real name and how to
retard wrote:
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:00:11 -0400, Gary Whatmore wrote:
What's the difference between:
type polymorphism
parametric polymorphism
ad-hoc polymorphism
generics
c++ templates
d style templates
other templates (are there?)
Does Java and C# have type polymorphism or
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:22:52 +0200, Lutger wrote:
retard wrote:
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:00:11 -0400, Gary Whatmore wrote:
What's the difference between:
type polymorphism
parametric polymorphism
ad-hoc polymorphism
generics
c++ templates
d style templates
other templates (are there?)
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 20:05:58 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
retard wrote:
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:30:50 -0400, bearophile wrote:
retard:
- Safety features: it misses integral overflow tests and static
contract checking (and many other things done by C lint tools, etc).
The list was describing
Paulo Pinto:
And lets not forget that optimizing Lisp compilers can beat Fortran code,
Only if the Fortran code is very bad :-)
Bye,
bearophile
On Wednesday 20 October 2010 22:47:15 Paulo Pinto wrote:
Eiffel does have templates, as in generic types.
Or do you mean the compile time trick that C++ templates allow, thus
opening the door for
the meta programming done at compile time?
Templates and generics are two separate - albeit
Sorry but I still don't get it.
Do you mean that the types that erased and the same code is generated?
Then let me say that .Net generics get generated on the fly and JITed for
each
different type.
Eiffel and Modula-3 generics also have specific generated code for each
type.
The major
What's the difference between:
type polymorphism
parametric polymorphism
ad-hoc polymorphism
generics
c++ templates
d style templates
other templates (are there?)
Does Java and C# have type polymorphism or generics or templates? What's the
real name and how to compare? Is D most expressive? I
I forgot Scala. They say Scala can @specialize without type erasure and it has
variance polymorphism. What are these? Sounds as if Scala is getting closer to
C++/D (instantiation and link-time optimization) and we need to fight back to
make our language more expressive.
- G.W.
Gary Whatmore
Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org wrote:
Sorry but I still don't get it.
Do you mean that the types that erased and the same code is generated?
Then let me say that .Net generics get generated on the fly and JITed for
each
different type.
Eiffel and Modula-3 generics also have specific
Gary Whatmore:
I forgot Scala. They say Scala can @specialize without type erasure and it
has variance polymorphism. What are these? Sounds as if Scala is getting
closer to C++/D (instantiation and link-time optimization) and we need to
fight back to make our language more expressive.
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:00:11 -0400, Gary Whatmore wrote:
What's the difference between:
type polymorphism
parametric polymorphism
ad-hoc polymorphism
generics
c++ templates
d style templates
other templates (are there?)
Does Java and C# have type polymorphism or generics or templates?
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:26:20 +, retard wrote:
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:00:11 -0400, Gary Whatmore wrote:
What's the difference between:
type polymorphism
parametric polymorphism
ad-hoc polymorphism
generics
c++ templates
d style templates
other templates (are there?)
Does Java and C#
retard:
- Complex integer types: Just L.
- Safety features: it misses integral overflow tests and static contract
checking (and many other things done by C lint tools, etc).
- Evaluation strategies: by need was present, but I think it's now
deprecated.
- Polymorphism: template template
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:30:50 -0400, bearophile wrote:
retard:
- Safety features: it misses integral overflow tests and static
contract checking (and many other things done by C lint tools, etc).
The list was describing the type system of the language. I can't agree
these are all part of the
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:30:50 -0400, bearophile wrote:
retard:
- Complex integer types: Just L.
- Safety features: it misses integral overflow tests and static
contract checking (and many other things done by C lint tools, etc). -
Evaluation strategies: by need was present, but I think it's
On Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:45:32 Paulo Pinto wrote:
Sorry but I still don't get it.
Do you mean that the types that erased and the same code is generated?
Then let me say that .Net generics get generated on the fly and JITed for
each
different type.
Eiffel and Modula-3 generics
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:51:03 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Now, as I said, C++ and D are the only languages I know of which use
templates. That doesn't mean that other languages do not. Looking at the
wikipedia page on template metaprogramming, it lists other languages
such as Eiffel and ML, so
On Thursday, October 21, 2010 17:05:45 retard wrote:
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:51:03 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Now, as I said, C++ and D are the only languages I know of which use
templates. That doesn't mean that other languages do not. Looking at the
wikipedia page on template
retard wrote:
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:30:50 -0400, bearophile wrote:
retard:
- Safety features: it misses integral overflow tests and static
contract checking (and many other things done by C lint tools, etc).
The list was describing the type system of the language. I can't agree
these are all
I can get the same benefict from functional languages+generics, or dynamic
languages.
Simen kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:op.vkxy6xx2vxi...@biotronic-pc.lan...
Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org wrote:
Sorry but I still don't get it.
Do you mean that the types that
On Thursday 21 October 2010 22:42:47 Paulo Pinto wrote:
I can get the same benefict from functional languages+generics, or dynamic
languages.
lisp macros aside, I've never seen anything that could ever come close to D
templates in terms of their flexiblity and power for code generation. I'm
Nahh, its just him, he apparently likes you the most (^ . ^)
(jk)
On 19 October 2010 21:53, Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org
wrote:
On 10/19/10 14:04 CDT, Max Samukha wrote:
On 10/19/2010 09:06 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
The point I was trying to express
Max Samukha wrote:
On 10/19/2010 09:06 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Time will tell how long it will take people to become idiomatically
proficient in D. But also consider that Andrei's book Modern C++
Design completely changed the idiomatic way people wrote C++ programs.
A 1990's state of the art
Sorry but I have to disagree.
Actually after reading TDPL I got the impression that at the semantic level,
D is not that
much easier than C++.
It does not make a difference for people that myself that are quite
comfortable with C++,
and all its idioms, but I think for the average programmer
IMHO one should not try to find a PL that is easy, what a programmer needs
is a language that makes things easier. If you dive into high
performance/flexible/efficient/platform specific... coding nothing will be
easy anyway.
What makes a language easy/hard is mostly the crucial things it
One more thing, it is hard to be comfortable with C++ if you are pushing
the limits of templates.
There are things you can do and things you simply cant.
Andrei and Walter here you know one of those template experts, so are the
people in Boost.
I am sure not a single one of them would say
Personally, my only complaint is the way error messages are handled. And I
was looking forward to have concepts in the language, which was not
possible,
but unfortunely there were some sematic issues related with the feature.
But LLVM project is showing how it is possible to make C++ more user
Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:57:10 +0300, so wrote:
IMHO one should not try to find a PL that is easy, what a programmer
needs is a language that makes things easier. If you dive into high
performance/flexible/efficient/platform specific... coding nothing will
be easy anyway.
What makes a language
Yes i meant C++ actually, but you can include here every other language
because the point is not having templates, having it in a powerful
environment.
For a language it shouldn't be that hard to have a generic syntax (lets
call it templates in here) much better than D, but if you
Error generation is the least of it. Think about how different would you
code, or how broad your choices would be with just templates with string
support, nothing more.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:34:05 +0300, Paulo Pinto pj...@progtools.org
wrote:
Personally, my only complaint is the way
so wrote:
One more thing, it is hard to be comfortable with C++ if you are pushing
the limits of templates.
There are things you can do and things you simply cant.
Andrei and Walter here you know one of those template experts, so are
the people in Boost.
I am sure not a single one of them
so wrote:
Error generation is the least of it. Think about how different would you
code, or how broad your choices would be with just templates with string
support, nothing more.
That's right. You cannot even pass a string literal to a C++ template.
Eiffel does have templates, as in generic types.
Or do you mean the compile time trick that C++ templates allow, thus opening
the door for
the meta programming done at compile time?
retard r...@tard.com.invalid wrote in message
news:i9mnq2$2m3...@digitalmars.com...
Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:57:10
On 18/10/10 11:03 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of the programmers I know
tend to react negatively to templates (probably primarily due to how nasty they
can be in C++), so sadly, it can be hard to sell powerful templates as a _good_
feature to some folks.
I think it has
Peter Alexander wrote:
On 18/10/10 11:03 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of the programmers I know
tend to react negatively to templates (probably primarily due to how
nasty they
can be in C++), so sadly, it can be hard to sell powerful templates
as a _good_
feature to some
On 19/10/2010 9:13 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Maybe we should call them ducklings. :p
No, rather eggs :-)
On 19/10/2010 7:04 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 18/10/10 11:03 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of the programmers I know
tend to react negatively to templates (probably primarily due to how
nasty they
can be in C++), so sadly, it can be hard to sell powerful templates as
a
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
Passing a type to a function is conceptually no more difficult
than passing the
number 7.
Using templates is easy, even in C++. Writing them is the
conceptually difficult part for most people.
Justin Johansson
There is also a big problem with reconciling templated types with OO typed
hierarchies. Often a dichotomy appears when templates and classes seem to
fight one another when you try to marriage the two idioms together (for better
or for worse but generally worse). :-(
Right.
Am 19.10.2010 13:29, schrieb bearophile:
Some of the problems of C++ templates:
- The syntax is a big problem; if you want to use them to do complex things you
need to write lot of ugly code. The lack of basic constructs like static if
doesn't help at all.
- The semantics is not clean, there
Andrej Mitrovic:
Knowing the syntax and knowing how to use a language are two very
different things. If you're a newbie you can learn the C syntax in a
couple of weeks, but you would be very wrong to assume that you know
e.g. 70% of C, and that you could read any C project and understand
it
On 19/10/2010 10:29 PM, bearophile wrote:
Justin Johansson
There is also a big problem with reconciling templated types with OO typed
hierarchies. Often a dichotomy appears when templates and classes seem to fight
one another when you try to marriage the two idioms together (for better or
So... When are you writing a book?
Emil Madsen
On 19 October 2010 13:49, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic:
Knowing the syntax and knowing how to use a language are two very
different things. If you're a newbie you can learn the C syntax in a
couple of weeks, but
On 19/10/2010 11:16 PM, Emil Madsen wrote:
So... When are you writing a book?
Emil Madsen
Hear, hear, I concert. When is bearophile going to
write a book? Alongside you I will be sure to
purchase a copy.
Cheers, Justin :-)
On 10/19/10, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic:
Knowing the syntax and knowing how to use a language are two very
different things. If you're a newbie you can learn the C syntax in a
couple of weeks, but you would be very wrong to assume that you know
e.g. 70% of C,
Andrej Mitrovic:
the Python documentation is just *fantastic*
(although I've heard some people disagree). It covers just about
everything you need to know (batteries included!), and there's always
instructions on how to use the library and the interpreter itself.
You're rarely left alone
Peter Alexander wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
Passing a type to a function is conceptually no more difficult
than passing the
number 7.
Using templates is easy, even in C++. Writing them is the
conceptually difficult part for most people.
I
They are fantastic in comparison to D's documentation. :-)
On 10/19/10, bearophile bearophileh...@lycos.com wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic:
the Python documentation is just *fantastic*
(although I've heard some people disagree). It covers just about
everything you need to know (batteries included!),
bearophile wrote:
The point I was trying to express is that from what I have seen people are
able to learn to program Python (this means quite more than just the syntax)
in *much* less time it takes to learn C++/D. And this has precise causes.
Time will tell how long it will take people to
Justin Johansson wrote:
On 19/10/2010 11:16 PM, Emil Madsen wrote:
So... When are you writing a book?
Emil Madsen
Hear, hear, I concert. When is bearophile going to
write a book? Alongside you I will be sure to
purchase a copy.
I think that would be a great idea! I'd buy the book, too.
On 19/10/10 7:00 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Peter Alexander wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
Passing a type to a function is conceptually no more difficult
than passing the
number 7.
Using templates is easy, even in C++. Writing them is the
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:06:46 -0700
Walter == Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Walter We've only just begun figuring out the right way to write D
Walter programs.
No worries about idiomatic D here...just gives us 64bit compiler an
GUI (QtD) lib so we can write...We'll optimize
On 10/19/2010 09:06 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
The point I was trying to express is that from what I have seen people
are
able to learn to program Python (this means quite more than just the
syntax)
in *much* less time it takes to learn C++/D. And this has precise causes.
Time
On 10/19/10 14:04 CDT, Max Samukha wrote:
On 10/19/2010 09:06 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
The point I was trying to express is that from what I have seen people
are
able to learn to program Python (this means quite more than just the
syntax)
in *much* less time it takes to learn
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 12:53:41 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 10/19/10 14:04 CDT, Max Samukha wrote:
On 10/19/2010 09:06 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
The point I was trying to express is that from what I have seen people
are
able to learn to program Python (this means
Forgive my ignorance but whenever i read a D review on that reddit thing,
one always brings up this open source complier thing.
My question is how many D like languages came up with an open source
compiler? Why do people keep using that argument again and again?
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010
My question is how many D like languages came up with an open source
compiler? Why do people keep using that argument again and again?
and second
how many of these other languages got an community driven development
processes (aren't there always these five keyplayers around?)
On Monday 18 October 2010 01:34:51 dennis luehring wrote:
My question is how many D like languages came up with an open source
compiler? Why do people keep using that argument again and again?
and second
how many of these other languages got an community driven development
processes
== Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisp...@gmx.com)'s article
On Monday 18 October 2010 01:34:51 dennis luehring wrote:
My question is how many D like languages came up with an open source
compiler? Why do people keep using that argument again and again?
and second
how many of
Am 18.10.2010 10:34, schrieb dennis luehring:
My question is how many D like languages came up with an open source
compiler? Why do people keep using that argument again and again?
and second
how many of these other languages got an community driven development
processes (aren't there
On 10/18/2010 04:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Java was big long before it was open-sourced, and C# is big in spite of the fact
that its main compiler isn't open source and the one that is (Mono) is so far
behind the main one that many people totally discount it.
Java and C# were pushed by
Hi,
because there are only two ways languages get maintstream:
- lots of PR and money invested into them building a community
- there is a killer application/set of features that builts a community
around the language
Usually closed source languages get maintream due to the first bullet point
Hi,
this is usually not a problem, because in many scenarios people are more
than
happy to mix languages.
I for one, am language agnostic, because I always use the appropriate
language
for the project at hand, and don't have any problem mixing languages.
In the Telecom industry which I know
Andrei:
Discusses a few languages including D:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dsdd6/the_next_big_language_2010_edition/
The Next Big Language will probably be JavaScript.
Bye,
bearophile
Thank you,
First point is a good one and explains Go's popularity and it is hard not
to agree that D fails on that one, no can do.
But is the second one applies to languages? I mean you can sell an OS with
a killer application or a computer but a programming language?
The set of features a
On Monday 18 October 2010 03:40:23 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Java was big long before it was open-sourced, and C# is big in spite of
the fact that its main compiler isn't open source and the one that is
(Mono) is so far behind the main one that
On 18/10/2010 10:11 PM, bearophile wrote:
Andrei:
Discusses a few languages including D:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dsdd6/the_next_big_language_2010_edition/
The Next Big Language will probably be JavaScript.
Bye,
bearophile
What encourages you to say so. JavaScript
the world
C# - Microsoft is making it the official .Net systems language
Scala - Seems to be the next big language in the JVM
Haskell, F# - Multicore is making functional programming more mainstream.
Plus Microsoft money.
There are probably more examples, that I have forgotten.
So the question
On 10/18/2010 07:52 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I definitely think that it would be a plus if D had a fully-compliant, open
source compiler, but I don't see its lack as much of a reason not to use the
language. The compiler is free and freely available. As long is it does it's
job, that seems
On 10/18/2010 07:11 AM, bearophile wrote:
The Next Big Language will probably be JavaScript.
I see JavaScript as being stuck in the browser for the foreseeable
future. It does have some usage outside the browser, but not much.
the way it is used
in universities around the world
C# - Microsoft is making it the official .Net systems language
Scala - Seems to be the next big language in the JVM
Haskell, F# - Multicore is making functional programming more mainstream.
Plus Microsoft money.
There are probably more examples
I see a lot of applications going into the browser, in the future, but thats
maybe just me :)
On 18 October 2010 16:10, Jeff Nowakowski j...@dilacero.org wrote:
On 10/18/2010 07:11 AM, bearophile wrote:
The Next Big Language will probably be JavaScript.
I see JavaScript as being stuck
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Java was big long before it was open-sourced, and C# is big in spite
of the fact
that its main compiler isn't open source and the one that is (Mono) is
so far
behind the main one that many people totally discount it.
Il 18/10/10 16.10, Jeff Nowakowski ha scritto:
I see JavaScript as being stuck in the browser for the foreseeable
future. It does have some usage outside the browser, but not much.
Take a look at http://nodejs.org/, there's someone willing to use JS to
build server side software ...
GR
for these ones is the Next Big Language always the one which solves the
currenty problem, very easy, very fast and without thinking about it
and they can only provide no-gos and gogos for every good or bad aspect
of every language
whats the main problem: if a big company is behind the language
Jeff Nowakowski Wrote:
On 10/18/2010 07:52 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I definitely think that it would be a plus if D had a fully-compliant, open
source compiler, but I don't see its lack as much of a reason not to use the
language. The compiler is free and freely available. As long is
On 10/18/2010 11:14 AM, Gianluigi wrote:
Take a look at http://nodejs.org/, there's someone willing to use JS to
build server side software ...
Yeah, I saw the Google Tech-talk for that. As I said, usage outside the
browser exists, but not much. The talk had some interesting ideas, but I
== Quote from Jeff Nowakowski (j...@dilacero.org)'s article
On 10/18/2010 07:11 AM, bearophile wrote:
The Next Big Language will probably be JavaScript.
I see JavaScript as being stuck in the browser for the foreseeable
future. It does have some usage outside the browser, but not much
On 10/18/2010 11:07 AM, Don wrote:
It really seems to be a philosophical objection rather than a practical
one. Or else based on a misunderstanding.
You can't fork. That's the main consideration. Brushing this aside as a
philosophical issue vs. a practical one is a misunderstanding on your
GPL or the Artistic License. But I'm not sure what the artistic
license is about. Is that the equivalent of GPL or does it have
different restrictions? I'll have to read it through..
To me, if I can read the source code then it's open source. It might
not be GPLFREE, but quite frankly I don't
You can't fork. That's the main consideration.
I don't think this is true: Tango seems to prove it.
Sure, you can't fork the backend too, but the backend doesn't really matter much
for it. The majority of D is the frontend and the libraries, all of which can
and
have been forked in the past.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:07:38 +0400, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Java was big long before it was open-sourced, and C# is big in spite
of the fact
that its main compiler isn't open source and the one that is (Mono) is
On 18-ott-10, at 16:52, Pelle wrote:
On 10/18/2010 03:18 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Yes, here is a summary of programming languages killer features.
[...]
So the question is, what could the D killer feature be?
I see a future for D in the HPC field, I have tried hard at building a
robust
On 18-ott-10, at 18:14, Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:07:38 +0400, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Java was big long before it was open-sourced, and C# is big in
spite of the fact
that its main compiler
uses the memory, you
have not fully understood the algorithm. Static memory asks to be more precise
about memory usages, and this helps you understand the algorithm better (and
will often improve the performance of your code too, even if you use Java).
Scala - Seems to be the next big language
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:25:52 +0400, Fawzi Mohamed fa...@gmx.ch wrote:
On 18-ott-10, at 18:14, Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:07:38 +0400, Don nos...@nospam.com wrote:
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:59 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Java was big long before it was
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
We've just tried programming with a friend in pair in D, and after
spending about an hour trying to figure out the program misbehavior we
understood it was a dmd codegen bug (I'll submit a report shortly). He was
very angry and said After so many years being in
Sean Kelly:
Clearly, your friend never used VC++6. It was the buggiest piece of software
I've ever used, and yet I never once heard someone say they were giving up on
C++ because of it. Sounds to me like he was just looking for a reason to not
give D a fair shake.
In past Perl/Tcl/C++
Andrei Alexandrescu seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org wrote in
news:i9f442$2b...@digitalmars.com:
Discusses a few languages including D:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dsdd6/the_next_big_languag
e_2010_edition/
Andrei
Call me a curmudgeon, but I don't like Next Big Thing
Yao G. Wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:08:45 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic
andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it was a rather superficial review of all the languages. Did
he even try any of them out, or did he just took a look at what
wikipedia has to say?
Here's my comment
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Sure, it would be great if dmd were completely open source, but I don't see why
the fact that it isn't would be all that big a deal. Other languages - such as
Java and C# - aren't open source (or at least weren't when they debuted). People
used them in spite of the fact
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:52:34 -0700
Walter == Walter Bright wrote:
Hello Walter,
Walter 1. People who won't use D for an irrational or unflattering
Walter reason. They'll search about for some other reason that is
Walter publicly acceptable. Any reason will do. You can tell them by
Walter if you
Denis Koroskin wrote:
Btw, here is the report: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5071
Thanks. I bumped up its priority.
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
