Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
retard wrote:
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:16:47 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Can you show examples of points 2, 3 and 4?
Have opDispatch look up the string in an associative array that returns
an associated delegate, then call the
Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:35:14 +, BCS wrote:
> Hello dsimcha,
>
>> == Quote from BCS (n...@anon.com)'s article
>>
>>> Show me ONE thing that can be done using run time meta programming
>>> that can't
>>> be done as well or better with run time, non-dynamic, non-meta and/or
>>> compile
>>> time me
Hello dsimcha,
== Quote from BCS (n...@anon.com)'s article
Show me ONE thing that can be done using run time meta programming
that can't
be done as well or better with run time, non-dynamic, non-meta and/or
compile
time meta. Unless I'm totally clueless as to what people are talking
about
when
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from BCS (n...@anon.com)'s article
Show me ONE thing that can be done using run time meta programming that can't
be done as well or better with run time, non-dynamic, non-meta and/or compile
time meta. Unless I'm totally clueless as to what people are talking about
when t
== Quote from BCS (n...@anon.com)'s article
> Show me ONE thing that can be done using run time meta programming that can't
> be done as well or better with run time, non-dynamic, non-meta and/or compile
> time meta. Unless I'm totally clueless as to what people are talking about
> when they say ru
Hello Bill,
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:26 PM, BCS wrote:
Hello Sergey,
They can, but I question if it's the best way to do it in those
languages. Generating code and running it at runtime seems to be
pointless. Why have the intermediate step with the code? I have
something I want to do, so I u
Hello retard,
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:16:28 +, BCS wrote:
Hello Leandro,
Again *optimization*. How many times should I say that I agree that
D is better than almost every dynamic languages if you need speed?
I'm not arguing on that point. What I'm arguing is that (at least for
me) the prim
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 11:50:23AM +, retard wrote:
> The case I commented on was about fetching values from a db IIRC.
What happened to me was the value got returned as the incorrect type, stored,
and used later where it threw the exception..
Conceptual code here:
===
def getPermission(use
BCS wrote:
Hello dsimcha,
== Quote from BCS (n...@anon.com)'s article
I don't have a link or anything but I remember hearing about a study
MS did
about finding bugs and what they found is that every reasonably
effective
tool they looked at found the same amount of bugs (ok, within
shouting di
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Bubble sort is perfeclty acceptable for, say, a 100 elements array.
It always depends on the context, of course, but when doing programs that
deals with small data sets and are mostly IO bounded, you *really* can
care less about performance and big-O.
The thing about
retard wrote:
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:00:50 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
retard wrote:
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:16:28 +, BCS wrote:
Hello Leandro,
Again *optimization*. How many times should I say that I agree that D
is better than almost every dynamic languages if you need speed?
I'm not
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:00:50 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> retard wrote:
>> Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:16:28 +, BCS wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Leandro,
>>
Again *optimization*. How many times should I say that I agree that D
is better than almost every dynamic languages if you need speed?
>>>
retard wrote:
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:16:28 +, BCS wrote:
Hello Leandro,
Again *optimization*. How many times should I say that I agree that D
is better than almost every dynamic languages if you need speed?
I'm not arguing on that point. What I'm arguing is that (at least for
me) the prima
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:26 PM, BCS wrote:
> Hello Sergey,
>
>> BCS wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not arguing on that point. What I'm arguing is that (at least for
>>> me) the primary advantages of metaprogramming are static checks (for
>>> non-perf benefits) and performance. Both of these must be done at
>>>
Hello Sergey,
BCS wrote:
I'm not arguing on that point. What I'm arguing is that (at least for
me) the primary advantages of metaprogramming are static checks (for
non-perf benefits) and performance. Both of these must be done at
compile time. Runtime metaprogramming just seems pointless *to m
Hello Leandro,
Don, el 2 de diciembre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
They are metaprogramming tasks. Dynamic languages can do some
metaprogramming tasks. They can't do those ones.
Because they make no sense, I really don't know how to put it. If you
need speed, you code in C/C++/D whatever. Its
BCS wrote:
I'm not arguing on that point. What I'm arguing is that (at least for
me) the primary advantages of metaprogramming are static checks (for
non-perf benefits) and performance. Both of these must be done at
compile time. Runtime metaprogramming just seems pointless *to me.*
One of im
Don, el 2 de diciembre a las 22:20 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >BCS, el 2 de diciembre a las 17:37 me escribiste:
> >>Hello Leandro,
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you say dynamic languages don't have metaprogramming capabilities,
> >>>you just don't have any idea of what a dynamic language re
BCS, el 2 de diciembre a las 21:16 me escribiste:
> Hello Leandro,
>
> >BCS, el 2 de diciembre a las 17:37 me escribiste:
> >
> >>Hello Leandro,
> >>
> >>>If you say dynamic languages don't have metaprogramming
> >>>capabilities, you just don't have any idea of what a dynamic
> >>>language reall
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:16:28 +, BCS wrote:
> Hello Leandro,
>> Again *optimization*. How many times should I say that I agree that D
>> is better than almost every dynamic languages if you need speed?
>
> I'm not arguing on that point. What I'm arguing is that (at least for
> me) the primary ad
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
BCS, el 2 de diciembre a las 17:37 me escribiste:
Hello Leandro,
If you say dynamic languages don't have metaprogramming capabilities,
you just don't have any idea of what a dynamic language really is.
If you say you can do metaprogramming at runtime you just don't
Hello Leandro,
BCS, el 2 de diciembre a las 17:37 me escribiste:
Hello Leandro,
If you say dynamic languages don't have metaprogramming
capabilities, you just don't have any idea of what a dynamic
language really is.
If you say you can do metaprogramming at runtime you just don't have
any
BCS, el 2 de diciembre a las 17:37 me escribiste:
> Hello Leandro,
>
>
> >If you say dynamic languages don't have metaprogramming capabilities,
> >you just don't have any idea of what a dynamic language really is.
> >
>
> If you say you can do metaprogramming at runtime you just don't have
> an
retard wrote:
I agree some disciplines are hard to follow. For example ensuring
immutability in a inherently mutable language. But TDD is something a bit
easier - it's a lot higher level. It's easy to remember that you can't
write any code into production code folder unless there is already cod
Hello dsimcha,
== Quote from BCS (n...@anon.com)'s article
I don't have a link or anything but I remember hearing about a study
MS did
about finding bugs and what they found is that every reasonably
effective
tool they looked at found the same amount of bugs (ok, within
shouting distance,
clos
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:22:01 -0500, retard wrote:
You don't seem to have any idea what the term 'dynamic' means. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming_language
I'm sure the first person who suggested C++ templates were a functional
language was shown wikipedia (or whatever
== Quote from BCS (n...@anon.com)'s article
> Hello dsimcha,
> > My biggest gripe about static verification is that it can't help you
> > at all with high-level logic/algorithmic errors, only lower level
> > coding errors. Good unit tests (and good asserts), on the other hand,
> > are invaluable f
Hello Leandro,
If you say dynamic languages don't have metaprogramming capabilities,
you just don't have any idea of what a dynamic language really is.
If you say you can do metaprogramming at runtime you just don't have any
idea of what I want to do with metaprogramming. For example:
uni
Hello Denis,
What if you don't know argument names a-priori? Consider a generic
Dynamic class that has nothing but a single opDispatch method.
you can do whatever logic you want, even (I think) aliasing the function
template opDispatch(string s)
{
static if(WhateverLogicYouNeed!(s))
Hello dsimcha,
My biggest gripe about static verification is that it can't help you
at all with high-level logic/algorithmic errors, only lower level
coding errors. Good unit tests (and good asserts), on the other hand,
are invaluable for finding and debugging high-level logic and
algorithmic e
Hello bearophile,
But in dynamic code you don't almost never assert that a variable is
an int; you assert that 'a' is able to do its work where it's used. So
'a' can often be an int, decimal, a multiprecision long, a GMP
multiprecision, or maybe even a float. What you care of it not what a
is bu
dsimcha:
>because Python's builtin arrays are too slow.<
Python lists are not badly implemented, it's the interpreter that's slow (*).
Python built-in arrays (lists) are dynamically typed, so they are less
efficient but more flexible. NumPy arrays are the opposite. So as usual with
data structu
Walter Bright:
> But with mechanical checking, you can guarantee certain things.
Usually what mechanical checking guarantee is not even vaguely enough, and such
guarantee aren't even about the most important parts :-)
Unit tests are more important, because they cover things that matter more.
Bett
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Don wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Lutger
wrote:
Ary Borenszweig wrote:
The feature isn't very dynamic since the dispatch rules are defined
statically. The only thing you can do is rewire the associative
I don't
== Quote from retard (r...@tard.com.invalid)'s article
> I thought D was supposed to be a practical language for real world
> problems. This 'D is good because everything can and must be written in
> D' is beginning to sound like a religion.
You're missing the point. Mixing languages always adds
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:12:58 +0100, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> std.conv.to() to the rescue! :)
>
>import std.conv;
>...
>
>row[] a = sql_engine.execute("select * from foobar;").result;
>
>int b = to!int(a[0][0]); // Throws if conversions fail
>string c = to!string(a[
retard wrote:
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:16:58 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
retard wrote:
The thing is, nowadays when all development should follow the
principles of clean code (book), agile, and tdd/bdd, this cannot
happen. You write tests first, then the production code. They say that
writing tests
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:16:58 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> retard wrote:
>> The thing is, nowadays when all development should follow the
>> principles of clean code (book), agile, and tdd/bdd, this cannot
>> happen. You write tests first, then the production code. They say that
>> writing tests and
retard wrote:
The thing is, nowadays when all development should follow the principles
of clean code (book), agile, and tdd/bdd, this cannot happen. You write
tests first, then the production code. They say that writing tests and
code takes less time than writing only the more or less buggy pro
retard wrote:
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:24:01 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
Unit tests have their limitations as well. Unit tests cannot prove a
function is pure, for example.
Sure, unit tests can't prove that.
Both unit tests and static verification are needed.
But it doesn't lead to this conclus
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:01:41 +0300, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Isn't opBinary almost identical to opDispatch? The only difference I
see is that o
Hello retard,
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:24:01 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
My biggest gripe about static verification is that it can't help you
at all with high-level logic/algorithmic errors, only lower level
coding errors. Good unit tests (and good asserts), on the other
hand, are
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:45 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I develop twice as fast in Python than in D. Of course this is only me,
but that's where I think Python is better than D :)
If that is not just because you
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> I'm amazed that virtually nobody uses rdmd. I can hardly fathom how I
> managed to make-do without it.
>
> Andrei
rdmd is a life saver, I use it all the time.
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>
> I guess D can greatly benefit from a compiler that can compile and run
> a multiple-files program with one command (AFAIK rdmd only support one
> file programs, right?) and an interactive console that can get the ddoc
> documentation on the fly. But that's not very re
retard wrote:
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:40:21 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:58:43 -0500, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:41:46 +0300, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:20:06 -0500, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wr
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I guess D can greatly benefit from a compiler that can compile and run
a multiple-files program with one command
dmd a b c -run args...
Can we have
dmd -resolve-deps-and-run main.d
I use rdmd wh
Pelle Månsson wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I guess D can greatly benefit from a compiler that can compile and run
a multiple-files program with one command
dmd a b c -run args...
Can we have
dmd -resolve-deps-and-run main.d
I use rdmd when I can, but it doesn't man
Walter Bright wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I guess D can greatly benefit from a compiler that can compile and run
a multiple-files program with one command
dmd a b c -run args...
Can we have
dmd -resolve-deps-and-run main.d
I use rdmd when I can, but it doesn't manage to link C-libs in
Walter Bright wrote:
But you can do that with the 'with' statement!
The with goes at the use end, not the object declaration end. Or I read
the spec wrong.
So does the scope guard. I think scope guard solves the same problem as
the with-statement, only it does it in a more flexible and arguab
On 28/11/2009 00:30, Walter Bright wrote:
One thing Java and Python, Ruby, etc., still hold over D is dynamic
classes, i.e. classes that are only known at runtime, not compile time.
In D, this:
s.foo(3);
Should opDispatch also enable dynamic property injection ?
I just thought that it would b
retard wrote:
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:22:10 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Right. But what people care in the end is programs that get the work
done. If a mix of Python plus C/C++ libs are good enough and handy
enough then they get used. For example I am able to use the PIL Python
l
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:40:21 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:58:43 -0500, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:41:46 +0300, Steven Schveighoffer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:20:06 -0500, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
>>>
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:24:01 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
>> My biggest gripe about static verification is that it can't help you at
>> all with high-level logic/algorithmic errors, only lower level coding
>> errors. Good unit tests (and good asserts), on the other hand, are
>> inval
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:58:32 -0500, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 09:17:44PM +, retard wrote:
>> The lack of type annotations at least removes all typing bugs.
>
> Quite the contrary, leaving off the type annotation spawns bugs.
It spawns new bugs, for sure, but it removes all
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:22:10 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>> Right. But what people care in the end is programs that get the work
>> done. If a mix of Python plus C/C++ libs are good enough and handy
>> enough then they get used. For example I am able to use the PIL Python
>> lib w
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:15:53 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> dsimcha wrote:
In Java, by going overboard on making the core language simple, you
end up pushing all the complexity into the APIs.
>>>
>>> Yup, and that's the underlying problem with "sim
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:45 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I develop twice as fast in Python than in D. Of co
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:45 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I develop twice as fast in Python than in D. Of course this is only me,
but that's where I think Python
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I think code translation from other languages is not a good reason for
adding complexity...
I think it is. We wouldn't have DWT otherwise, for example. Inner
classes were added specifically in order to speed up the translation
process.
The code complexity is suppo
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
D has three: RAII, scope guard, and try-catch-finally. As far as I'm
concerned, the only reason t-c-f isn't taken out to the woodshed and
shot is to make it easy to translate code from other languages to D.
I've
Bill Baxter Wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
> > Bill Baxter Wrote:
> >
> >> Good counterpoints to my argument. So I give up on that line.
> >>
> >> Here's another, how do you implement the opBinary_r operators with
> >> opDispatch?
> >
> > Kinda cooky, but
Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 17:31 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >It looks like you can (not as easily) according to bearophile example, but
> >this is besides the point, you only want to use malloc() for performance
> >reasons, and I already said that D is better than Pyth
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> D has three: RAII, scope guard, and try-catch-finally. As far as I'm
> concerned, the only reason t-c-f isn't taken out to the woodshed and
> shot is to make it easy to translate code from other languages to D.
I've literally nev
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>>
>>> Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:45 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>
> I develop twice as fast in Python than
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
It looks like you can (not as easily) according to bearophile example, but
this is besides the point, you only want to use malloc() for performance
reasons, and I already said that D is better than Python on that.
I mentioned ctypes just for the point of easy C-interopera
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I guess D can greatly benefit from a compiler that can compile and run
a multiple-files program with one command
dmd a b c -run args...
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Ok, does this work:
p = libc.malloc(100); *p = 3;
? Or this:
struct S { int a; char b; }; S s; libc.fillInS(&s);
The purpose of ctypes is to interface Python with C libs, it's a
quite well designed piece of software engineering. This is how you
can do what
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>
>> Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:45 me escribiste:
>>>
>>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I develop twice as fast in Python than in D. Of course this is only me,
but that's where I think
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:45 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I develop twice as fast in Python than in D. Of course this is only me,
but that's where I think Python is better than D :)
If that is not just because you know the Python system far
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> Bill Baxter Wrote:
>
>> Good counterpoints to my argument. So I give up on that line.
>>
>> Here's another, how do you implement the opBinary_r operators with
>> opDispatch?
>
> Kinda cooky, but what about this:
>
> a + b -> b.opDispa
Bill Baxter Wrote:
> Good counterpoints to my argument. So I give up on that line.
>
> Here's another, how do you implement the opBinary_r operators with opDispatch?
Kinda cooky, but what about this:
a + b -> b.opDispatch!("r+" )(a)
-Steve
Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:45 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >I develop twice as fast in Python than in D. Of course this is only me,
> >but that's where I think Python is better than D :)
>
> If that is not just because you know the Python system far better
> than the
Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 13:43 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >5. simple interfacing to C
> In case you mean no unnecessary wrappers etc., this has more to
> do with the execution model than language features. Most
> scripting languages are interpreted, a
Walter Bright:
> Ok, does this work:
>
> p = libc.malloc(100);
> *p = 3;
>
> ? Or this:
>
> struct S { int a; char b; };
> S s;
> libc.fillInS(&s);
The purpose of ctypes is to interface Python with C libs, it's a quite well
designed piece of software engineering. This
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
>> How about this: given only a catch-all opDispatch which implements
>> dynamic dispatch, the compiler cannot statically determine if
>> operators are really implemented or not.
>
> Why does it have to?
> proposed implementation:
>
> com
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:24:30 -0500, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:01:41 -0500, Bill Baxter
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
wro
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Parameters to dynDispatch (the user-defined forwarding function), NOT
opDispatch. opDispatch can take _anything_.
Sorry if I'm repeating what you know already, but I am obsessing over a
small misunderstanding could end up hamstringing this very powerful
feature.
S
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
You might say that I should have been more disciplined about [...]
That's the usual excuse for poor language design . What I've been
trying to do with D is enable more static verification, so that the
project team can rely on enforced guarantees rather than discipline,
e
dsimcha wrote:
My biggest gripe about static verification is that it can't help you at all with
high-level logic/algorithmic errors, only lower level coding errors. Good unit
tests (and good asserts), on the other hand, are invaluable for finding and
debugging high-level logic and algorithmic er
bearophile wrote:
Right. But what people care in the end is programs that get the work
done. If a mix of Python plus C/C++ libs are good enough and handy
enough then they get used. For example I am able to use the PIL
Python lib with Python to load, save and process jpeg images at
high-speed with
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:01:41 -0500, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 09:17:44PM +, retard wrote:
The lack of type annotations at least removes all typing bugs.
Quite the contrary, leaving off the type annotation spawns bugs.
Yah, I was wondering about that! The hypothesis is there, but the
conclusion was the n
Walter Bright:
> I meant it in the form of the simpler being better hypothesis.
I see, I have missed that purpose of the discussion... I am sorry.
> The very existence of those shows that Python itself is not powerful enough.
Right. But what people care in the end is programs that get the work
Don wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
And once again we see Clugston's Law at work. As soon as you figure
out how to do one thing in D, a new compiler feature comes along that
makes it a one-liner. :-)
I love it!
Part of that is just that Don is very good at figuring out what needs to
be supporte
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I develop twice as fast in Python than in D. Of course this is only me,
but that's where I think Python is better than D :)
If that is not just because you know the Python system far better than
the D one, then yes indeed it is a win.
I think only not having a compi
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 09:17:44PM +, retard wrote:
> The lack of type annotations at least removes all typing bugs.
Quite the contrary, leaving off the type annotation spawns bugs. I had to
write a web app in Ruby last year, and well remember the little things that
slipped past tests, pissin
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
5. simple interfacing to C
In case you mean no unnecessary wrappers etc., this has more to
do with the execution model than language features. Most
scripting languages are interpreted, and require some sort of
assistance from the runtime system. If the language was compi
dsimcha:
> Good unit
> tests (and good asserts), on the other hand, are invaluable for finding and
> debugging high-level logic and algorithmic errors.
Contract programming too can help. For example in a precondition of a binary
search function you can test that the items are sorted. If you don't
bearophile wrote:
I suggest Walter to don't try to say that D2 is "better" than Python,
it's a waste of time and it means nothing.
I meant it in the form of the simpler being better hypothesis. I am
arguing that a simpler language often leads to complex code.
CorePy, PyCuda, PyOpenCL, etc. a
== Quote from retard (r...@tard.com.invalid)'s article
> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:46:11 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> > Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >> I really think the *only* *major* advantage of D over Python is speed.
> >> That's it.
> >
> > I probably place a lot more importance on static verificati
grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
dsimcha wrote:
In Java, by going overboard on making the core language simple,
you end up pushing all the complexity into the APIs.
Yup, and that's the underlying problem with "simple" languages.
Complicated code.
I think users of scripting languages wo
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:11:26 -0300, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> And again, judging from experience, I don't know why, but I really have
> a very small bug count when using Python. I don't work with huge teams
> of crappy programmers (which I think is the scenario that D tries to
> cover), that can be
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Yah, point taken :o). I probably haven't clarified enough that I'm
talking about a mere belief. Arguments have been discussed here in the
past (e.g. scalability of the language construct with multiple
transactions). Time will tell, but one indicating factor is that
p
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:46:11 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>> I really think the *only* *major* advantage of D over Python is speed.
>> That's it.
>
> I probably place a lot more importance on static verification rather
> than relying on convention and tons of unit tests.
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:39:44 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> retard wrote:
>> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:16:47 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Can you show examples of points 2, 3 and 4?
>>> Have opDispatch look up the string in an associative array that
>>> returns an as
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:01:41 -0500, Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Isn't opBinary almost identical to opDispatch? The only difference I
see is that o
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
Isn't opBinary almost identical to opDispatch? The only difference I
>>>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
> wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>>> Isn't opBinary almost identical to opDispatch? The only difference I
>>> see is that opBinary works with operators as the 'symbol' and
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:06:27 -0500, Pelle Månsson
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Isn't opBinary almost identical to opDispatch? The only difference I
see is that opBinary works with operators as the 'symbol' and dispatch
works with valid symbols. Is it important to distinguish be
1 - 100 of 252 matches
Mail list logo
