On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 21:23:24 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
The more I look at D, the more I like C++.
I should correct that.
The more I look at D, the more I like C++, C#, Java, Kotlin,
Swift, Javascript .. and the list goes on..
All D needed to provide, was a way to let the prog
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 22:03:48 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 21:23:24 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
The more I look at D, the more I like C++.
cya
of course, I do have my own fork ;-)
where you CAN declare private members for your class.
and.. where all
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 22:03:48 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 21:23:24 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
The more I look at D, the more I like C++.
cya
I bet that's what you say to anyone who dares want to have hidden
members inside their class.
All the thre
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 21:23:24 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
Here is (one example) of the change I would like to see in D:
if private is declared against a member inside a class (or
struct), then that member is visible only inside that class or
struct. That is what most programmers
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 07:49:03 UTC, RTM wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 06:55:49 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
More likely is comes from my experience .. otherwise I
wouldn't be surprised ;-)
Now that's a screaming sign:
https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D12AQEymZALzWVDXQ/
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 07:49:03 UTC, RTM wrote:
Implying that D language maintainers should prefer your
personal taste over modern practice?
So it's now modern practice to dump the principle of data hiding?
I'm sure that will surely advance the science of programming.
Don't like
On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 06:12:47 UTC, RTM wrote:
No offense, but it looks like your surprise comes from your
inexperience.
More likely is comes from my experience .. otherwise I wouldn't
be surprised ;-)
btw.
I love the way that Brayan Martinez (Senior Developer with Azure,
Spr
On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 22:58:19 UTC, ProtectAndHide wrote:
Actually, I just now understand 'why' (as opposed to 'how')
private works in D the way it does.
In D, private within a module is (more-or-less) like static used
in C outside of a function.
That is, in C it restrains the v
On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 04:58:17 UTC, RTM wrote:
Data hiding is overrated.
...
Actually, data hiding is at the core of using objects, and
objects are at the core of doing OOP.
" Hiding internal state and requiring all interaction to be
performed through an object's methods is known
On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 09:56:26 UTC, RTM wrote:
On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 06:56:08 UTC, ProtectAndHide
Thirty years passed since. Lessons were learned. Out of three
PLs of the newer generation (Rust, Swift, Go), two are not OOP,
basically.
And no private/public/protected:
https
On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 04:58:17 UTC, RTM wrote:
Data hiding is overrated.
Furthermore, OOP is overrated :-)
https://betterprogramming.pub/object-oriented-programming-the-trillion-dollar-disaster-92a4b666c7c7
What is 'Object-Oriented Programming'? (1991 revised version)
Bjarne Stroust
On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 04:58:17 UTC, RTM wrote:
Data hiding is overrated.
Furthermore, OOP is overrated :-)
https://betterprogramming.pub/object-oriented-programming-the-trillion-dollar-disaster-92a4b666c7c7
Submit a request to the C++ Committee to remove private from the
language.
On Friday, 17 February 2023 at 04:43:11 UTC, RTM wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 20:56:00 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
Both the module type, and the class type need this capability.
No, they are not.
Look at Go.
Go does not have classes.
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 21:56:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 21:23:53 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
Forcing programmers to use a design mechanism rather than a
language mechanism to achieve the above abstraction is wrong.
This seems to be the source of the dis
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 21:56:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 21:23:53 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
Forcing programmers to use a design mechanism rather than a
language mechanism to achieve the above abstraction is wrong.
This seems to be the source of the dis
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 20:56:00 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
My agrument is this:
Objects are data abstractions with an interface of named
operations and a hidden local state. Does anyone disagree with
this?
D does not have a language mechanism, but rather a design
mechanism that
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 13:39:13 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 08:51:39AM +, FeepingCreature via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...]
Springboarding off this post:
This thread is vastly dominated by some people who care very
much about this issue. Comparatively, for i
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 02:56:28 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
What a joke. Even Javascript can do this (and the compile will
enforce it too).
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Classes/Private_class_fields
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 02:26:44 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:10:31 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
What Mike is arguing, is that I don't need a 'data hiding'
mechanism for a user-defined type, because that is already
provided to me by the 'data hiding' m
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 02:26:44 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:10:31 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
What Mike is arguing, is that I don't need a 'data hiding'
mechanism for a user-defined type, because that is already
provided to me by the 'data hiding' m
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:34:13 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:06:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 07:13:41 UTC,
thebluepandabear wrote:
Time to move on to OCaml programmers telling us D doesn't
have floating point arithmet
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:10:31 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
...
this is not to be personal, just to make an analogy about the
point being made:
if Mike was a car salesperson, he'd be arguing that I don't need
an automatic transmission. I can already do it manually. Why
should we
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:01:12 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 19:44:50 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
A user-defined type is a type that has a mechanism to keep it
representation private.
D does not support this. It only enables it.
You (and others) may well
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 19:44:50 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
"The basic support for programming with data abstraction consists
of facilities for defining a set of operations (functions and
operators) for a type and for restricting the access to objects
of the type to that set of op
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 10:17:30 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I referenced that in my post. The exact same problem exists
*inside* the class when your class file is very long. You can
easily manipulate the private member even when it's only
supposed to be accessed by a specific function.
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Our friend of many forum handles misses no opportunity to
return to this putrid horse corpse to beat it some more, but
the meaning of private isn't going to change. This is D's
approach to encapsulation.
It seems the only be
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Our friend of many forum handles misses no opportunity to
return to this putrid horse corpse to beat it some more, but
the meaning of private isn't going to change. This is D's
approach to encapsulation.
It seems the only be
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 10:17:30 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
We keep repeating the same arguments over and over and over
again on this. I still haven't seen any convincing argument for
changing things when it's already possible to do what you want
to do. I repeat for the umpteenth time:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 18:30:05 UTC, seany wrote:
Hello
Consider the content of a file
First line \n
Second line
data data data data ... last char
My goal is to find out whether the last character is a new line
or not. Please not, it will be sufficient if this w
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 09:51:41 UTC, zjh wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:57:27 UTC, Mike Parker
wrote:
I meant to say, it "wouldn't add more".
What if two classes in the module that are several meters apart
make `mistakes` that change the privite variable of `another
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 07:23:39 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 02:14:30 UTC, Mike Parker
wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 01:16:00 UTC,
thebluepandabear wrote:
I think what you could say is that D lacks _encapsulation_
which is also an OOP
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:57:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Mike Parker
wrote:
If private were restricted to the class/struct, it would add
anything more for encapsulation in D.
I meant to say, it "wouldn't add more".
Well, to quote St
On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 15:34:17 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 10:16:47 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
In any case, there is nothing 'picky' about wanting to be able
to explicately 'declare' a member of my class type as being
private. That to me, is what a programm
On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 08:15:37 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
My point is you know you're just picky.
Well.. it seems to me, that your 'point' is to just have a go at
me.
In any case, there is nothing 'picky' about wanting to be able to
explicately 'declare' a member of my class type as bein
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 18:04:40 UTC, Matt wrote:
Obviously, there is no "set" object in D, but I was wondering
what the quickest way to remove duplicates from an array would
be. I was convinced I'd seen a "unique" method somewhere, but
I've looked through the documentation for std.array
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 09:14:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 08:22:06 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
Chris Lattner outlines the reasons for removing it in Swift
3.0 here:
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals/0004-remove-pre-post-inc-decrement.m
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 07:19:49 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 21:52:02 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
Well in Swift, there is no problem .. at all.
Why is it a problem in D then? (and I mean technically).
What about the increment operator `++` ?
Remember, that a one
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 02:17:09 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
I'm not an advocate of any style in particular. I'm happy to
use any style that is clear to understand and use, suitable,
and can provide reasonable guarantees around memory safety and
correctness.
But a language that clai
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 02:18:48 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
What attracts me to D, is the inability to program outside of
a class in C#. I think they are trying to find ways to make
this happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
programming outside of a class is overrated though in m
On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 02:15:37 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
That's not entirely correct.
I don't use any Apple hardware products. Never have, and never
will.
I use Swift on Linux only.
There are of course some library features of Swift tied to
Apple products. But I have no need f
On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 02:57:42 UTC, zjh wrote:
On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 02:04:06 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
"Before practicing Zen, mountains were mountains and rivers
were rivers.
While practicing Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and
rivers are no longer rivers.
After re
On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 23:24:11 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
I think the 'real' problem, is that some core D people just
refuse to allow D to provide such an option to the programmer.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that heaps of D
programmers write procedural code and don
On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 23:22:34 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
A good example of a language that does everything right is C#.
If C# wasn't tied to Microsoft, it would honestly be pretty
much the perfect language. Java is also pretty good, but it has
its downsides.
I don't agree with all
On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 23:19:31 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
I think the 'real' problem, is that some core D people just
refuse to allow D to provide such an option to the programmer.
For what reason, I cannot fathom, since Swift can do this just
fine. I think it's some kind of bias aga
On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 14:50:59 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 07:04:31 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
Having class-private doesn't preclude module-private. Dennis
even submitted a PR implementing class-private, but it stalled
because people couldn't agree on whether cla
On Friday, 10 February 2023 at 00:18:59 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
Not everybody shares that view. So, there must be something
deeper here: maybe some people are blind (including me), or
others have expectations that they carry from other languages,
or something else... But look at the contrast:
On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 23:05:35 UTC, Hipreme wrote:
On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 22:34:29 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 20:05:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli
wrote:
On 2/8/23 04:07, zjh wrote:
> Last time, someone proposed to add `private` like `C++'s`,
We've disc
On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 23:13:00 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
...
Well, the only thing we can say for sure now, is that since
'class', 'oop', and 'private' have all been mentioned in this
thread, some 'key D people' (wink wink) will come out to derail
this thread by further pointing out
On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 20:05:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/8/23 04:07, zjh wrote:
> Last time, someone proposed to add `private` like `C++'s`,
We've discussed the 'private' topic very many times already.
C++'s private necessitate the 'friend' keyword, which comes
with it's own prob
On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 07:19:08 UTC, Alexander Zhirov
wrote:
foo.byPair
.array
.sort!((a, b) => a.key < b.key)
.map!(a => a.value);
Is it possible to specify in `map` to return the result
`[a.key] = a.value`? To make the result look like `[key:[val],
key:[val]]`
Wow. This is an
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:16:48 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/6/23 23:33, ProtectAndHide wrote:
> On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 21:46:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> And as 'static class' and 'static struct' are already usable
in D, a
>> newcomer would definitely be confused with your "terr
On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 21:02:13 UTC, Richard (Rikki)
Andrew Cattermole wrote:
On 07/02/2023 9:56 AM, ProtectAndHide wrote:
On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 08:26:45 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
In contrast, D delivers some features in an unprincipled way
and the programmers use combinatio
On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 21:46:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/6/23 12:56, ProtectAndHide wrote:
> I'm not going to 'go write a
> DIP'.
Nobody will write a DIP about it because very few people ever
mentioned this issue over the years.
And as 'static class' and 'static struct' are alread
On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 08:26:45 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
In contrast, D delivers some features in an unprincipled way
and the programmers use combinations of those features the way
the see fit.
I agree, that D is unprincipled in many ways, and this is perhaps
the biggest surprise
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 23:53:35 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I understand disabling the programmer to do certain things are
beneficial e.g. to prevent bugs but those above can all be seen
as features. What is so terrible about giving the programmer
those powers?
Ali
Interestingly, in Sw
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 23:53:35 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/5/23 14:40, ProtectAndHide wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 10:51:51 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
>>
>> It's not a terrible workaround to be honest.
>>
>
> The 'terrible' part is this:
>
> - the compiler will allow yo
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 22:40:09 UTC, ProtectAndHide wrote:
..
module test;
import std;
static final class Algo
{
@disable this();
static this()
{
Message = "Hello!";
}
static:
string Message;
void drawLine() {};
}
void main()
{
Algo foo1
On Sunday, 5 February 2023 at 10:51:51 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
It's not a terrible workaround to be honest.
The 'terrible' part is this:
- the compiler will allow you to declare a variable of type Algo
- the compiler will allow you to declare an array with elements
of type Algo
-
On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 21:54:49 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
...
Interesting, so maybe there is a use case for a purely static
type or namespace?
The standard library as well uses `final abstract class` a
couple of times, which can also be thought as a type of
namespace.
All these
On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 06:09:56 UTC, RTM wrote:
On Saturday, 28 January 2023 at 23:19:35 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
That is, you can do OOP without classes
How so? Every OOP definition includes classes (encapsulation +
inheritance).
I didn't say you should do it, just that you can
On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 at 15:43:46 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
using static class and static function is not "OOP way" of
doing things, it's a hack to mimic procedural style because
Java doesn't have proper modules / scoping
mimicking the shortcomings of Java is a bad idea imo
D empowers you
61 matches
Mail list logo
