Le 28/02/2014 13:22, Szymon Gatner a écrit :
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 11:43:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 11:28:01 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
I didn't mean "basic" in the sense of "easy" but in the sense of
something that has to dealt with all the time / is common r
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:52:28 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
I'm a C folk and I'm really happy :)
+1
C'mon, GC has to be an itch for you mallocers :)
Come to the dark side...
It sometimes is. In that case we don't use GC.
Don't get me wrong - there are issues with current GC enforcem
On 2/28/2014 9:15 PM, Szymon Gatner wrote:
So to sum up: C folks are not really happy, C++ folks are not really
happy and C# folks are not really happy :P
I'm a C folk and I'm really happy :)
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:48:47 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On 2/28/2014 9:15 PM, Szymon Gatner wrote:
So to sum up: C folks are not really happy, C++ folks are not
really
happy and C# folks are not really happy :P
I'm a C folk and I'm really happy :)
C'mon, GC has to be an itch for
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:15:21 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
It really is, RAII is the most important idiom in C++, in short
no RAII == buggy code. I mean proper C++ not
C-with-classes-no-templates-no-exceptions bs.
So to sum up: C folks are not really happy, C++ folks are not
really hap
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:17:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 12:15:21 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
It really is, RAII is the most important idiom in C++, in
short no RAII == buggy code. I mean proper C++ not
C-with-classes-no-templates-no-exceptions bs.
So to sum up
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 11:43:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 11:28:01 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
I didn't mean "basic" in the sense of "easy" but in the sense
of something that has to dealt with all the time / is common
requirement.
Yes, it needs to be dealt with
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 11:54:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On 2/28/2014 8:43 PM, Dicebot wrote:
Most problems I have with D data structures come from
qualifiers, not
from resource management. I really don't understand why this
looks that
much of a problem. That said, my background very
On 2/28/2014 8:43 PM, Dicebot wrote:
Most problems I have with D data structures come from qualifiers, not
from resource management. I really don't understand why this looks that
much of a problem. That said, my background very influenced by plain C
and that results in different habits and expe
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 11:28:01 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
I didn't mean "basic" in the sense of "easy" but in the sense
of something that has to dealt with all the time / is common
requirement.
Yes, it needs to be dealt with all the time but in a different
ways. Problem is with gettin
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 10:44:22 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:29:57 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
I dig flexibility, I really do, and I appreciate D's features
that enable that, but in case of such basic thing as a
resource management, I just want things to work wi
On Friday, 28 February 2014 at 10:45:53 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:29:55 -, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:06:58 UTC, John Colvin
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:52:00 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:29:55 -, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:06:58 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:52:00 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:42:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is also one complex and feature-
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:29:57 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
I dig flexibility, I really do, and I appreciate D's features
that enable that, but in case of such basic thing as a resource
management, I just want things to work without surprises by
default.
Resource management (including
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 15:39:48 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 15:36:02 UTC, Remo wrote:
What do you mean by Microsoft's dialect?
I mean half-implemented buggy version of C++11 in VC2012 ;)
Or in VC2013, but if you can use Intel compiler then it is bett
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 15:09:39 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:56:22 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:52:00 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:42:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is also one complex and fea
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:56:22 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:52:00 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:42:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is also one complex and feature-reach implementation of
uniqueness concept by Sonke Ludwig :
h
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 15:36:02 UTC, Remo wrote:
What do you mean by Microsoft's dialect?
I mean half-implemented buggy version of C++11 in VC2012 ;)
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:42:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is also one complex and feature-reach implementation of
uniqueness concept by Sonke Ludwig :
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/blob/master/source/vibe/core/concurrency.d#L281
(Isolated!T)
Priceless for message passin
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 15:56:26 UTC, Remo wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 15:39:48 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 15:36:02 UTC, Remo wrote:
What do you mean by Microsoft's dialect?
I mean half-implemented buggy version of C++11 in VC2012 ;)
Or
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:58:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Szymon Gatner:
Tbh it only looks worse and worse to me :(
Perhaps for your use case it's better for you to stick with
C++11? While I have written a good amount of D code (perhaps
200_000 lines or more), I still use Python a lo
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:49:48 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
You can disable postblit to make entity non-copyable:
http://dlang.org/struct.html#StructPostblit
How can I then use it as a function return value? Or store in a
container?
Actually if postblit had a bool param saying that t
There is also one complex and feature-reach implementation of
uniqueness concept by Sonke Ludwig :
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/blob/master/source/vibe/core/concurrency.d#L281
(Isolated!T)
Priceless for message passing concurrency.
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 15:15:06 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:58:50 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Szymon Gatner:
Tbh it only looks worse and worse to me :(
Perhaps for your use case it's better for you to stick with
C++11? While I have written a good amoun
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:52:00 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:42:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is also one complex and feature-reach implementation of
uniqueness concept by Sonke Ludwig :
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/blob/master/source/vibe
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:41:27 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:37:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
They actually don't have all the necessary features in D
afaiu. They do have value semantics but can't represent
uniqueness because of missing move d-tor.
For exam
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 16:10:34 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:37:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
They actually don't have all the necessary features in D
afaiu. They do have value semantics but can't represent
uniqueness because of missing move d-tor.
st
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:37:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
They actually don't have all the necessary features in D afaiu.
They do have value semantics but can't represent uniqueness
because of missing move d-tor.
For example in C++ I can create a function that returns a
Texture clas
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 15:09:39 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:56:22 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:52:00 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:42:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is also one complex and fea
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 17:31:57 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Isn't it exactly what Phobos RefCounted does?
Yes, though knowing how the implementation works is good for
stuff like interfacing with C where you might need different
acquire/free/add count/release functions than phobos uses.
ht
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 18:06:58 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:52:00 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:42:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is also one complex and feature-reach implementation of
uniqueness concept by Sonke Ludwig :
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:29:05 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
Explicit call to init() / terminate() are so C :/
It is much better than C because of `scope(exit) terminate()`
though :)
Also you can use struct destructors same as in C++
Worst part is there is no even standard shared/weak
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:52:00 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:42:43 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
There is also one complex and feature-reach implementation of
uniqueness concept by Sonke Ludwig :
https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d/blob/master/source/vibe
Szymon Gatner:
Tbh it only looks worse and worse to me :(
Perhaps for your use case it's better for you to stick with
C++11? While I have written a good amount of D code (perhaps
200_000 lines or more), I still use Python a lot, etc.
Bye,
bearophile
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 16:10:34 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
struct RefCountingStruct {
private struct Impl {
// implementation here
int refcount;
}
Impl* payload;
alias payload this;
Isn't it exactly what Phobos RefCounted does?
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:37:14 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
They actually don't have all the necessary features in D afaiu.
They do have value semantics but can't represent uniqueness
because of missing move d-tor.
struct MovingStruct {
@disable this(this);
typeof(this) release
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:18:47 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:14:43 UTC, Namespace wrote:
Why not? Overhead? No RAII support?
Simply no reason to use classes, structs have all features I
need for cases when polymorphism is not necessary (95%+). Being
value
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:31:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:18:51 UTC, Remo wrote:
Then the question is why not use structs all the time?
Key class feature is run-time polymorphism (via
interfaces/inheritance). I tend to use structs for everything
else i
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:14:43 UTC, Namespace wrote:
Why not? Overhead? No RAII support?
Simply no reason to use classes, structs have all features I need
for cases when polymorphism is not necessary (95%+). Being value
type is also convenient as it leaves more control to the
prog
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:44:11 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:31:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:18:51 UTC, Remo wrote:
Then the question is why not use structs all the time?
Key class feature is run-time polymorphism (via
inte
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 14:12:58 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:44:11 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:31:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:18:51 UTC, Remo wrote:
Then the question is why not use structs all th
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:31:45 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:18:51 UTC, Remo wrote:
Then the question is why not use structs all the time?
Key class feature is run-time polymorphism (via
interfaces/inheritance). I tend to use structs for everything
else i
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:18:51 UTC, Remo wrote:
Then the question is why not use structs all the time?
Key class feature is run-time polymorphism (via
interfaces/inheritance). I tend to use structs for everything
else in my personal code.
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:07:37 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On 2/27/2014 9:25 PM, Szymon Gatner wrote:
This is just an example but I would think that it is something
rather
important to have... What about child objects un-registering
themselves
in d-tors from a list that parent object
On 2/27/2014 10:00 PM, Szymon Gatner wrote:
Still, this feels like working around a language issue, if c-tor order
is defined why d-tor isn't? I am ok with non-deterministic time of
execution of d-tors/finalizers but not-having parent-child d-tor order
defined? That is weird.
I've never seen
On 2/27/2014 9:25 PM, Szymon Gatner wrote:
This is just an example but I would think that it is something rather
important to have... What about child objects un-registering themselves
in d-tors from a list that parent object holds and parent is destroyed
first? What about asynchronous completi
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:04:17 UTC, Namespace wrote:
I use this solution especially because I have to finalize the
data before I call SDL_Quit. And therefore I cannot trust the
non-deterministic execution of the Dtor.
I fully understand that ;)
I will take a look at DGame too for
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 12:32:36 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 12:25:49 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 11:13:17 UTC, bearophile
wrote:
Szymon Gatner:
I just want them to do their cleanup first as they should.
Why? Perhaps if you
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 13:00:27 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 12:32:36 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 12:25:49 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 11:13:17 UTC, bearophile
wrote:
Szymon Gatner:
I just want
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 12:25:49 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 11:13:17 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Szymon Gatner:
I just want them to do their cleanup first as they should.
Why? Perhaps if you explain what's behind your needs better,
people can help better.
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 11:13:17 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Szymon Gatner:
I just want them to do their cleanup first as they should.
Why? Perhaps if you explain what's behind your needs better,
people can help better.
Bye,
bearophile
In my specific example I am creating OpenGL Rend
Szymon Gatner:
I just want them to do their cleanup first as they should.
Why? Perhaps if you explain what's behind your needs better,
people can help better.
Bye,
bearophile
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 10:40:15 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
Szymon Gatner wrote:
Parent-child in the sense of object graph. I did read the spec
when I started to notice crashes. I must say that it really
terrified me to my very bones. I always though that
higher-level memory manage
Szymon Gatner wrote:
Parent-child in the sense of object graph. I did read the spec
when I started to notice crashes. I must say that it really
terrified me to my very bones. I always though that
higher-level memory management environments would give more and
not less guarantees.
Anyway, I
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 09:57:51 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 09:55:14 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 09:49:08 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
My crashes (still have them and can't track all as debugging
D sucks) are caused by the
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 09:55:14 UTC, Tobias Pankrath
wrote:
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 09:49:08 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
My crashes (still have them and can't track all as debugging D
sucks) are caused by the fact that d-tor of parent object can
be called before child d-tors. A
On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 09:49:08 UTC, Szymon Gatner
wrote:
My crashes (still have them and can't track all as debugging D
sucks) are caused by the fact that d-tor of parent object can
be called before child d-tors. Adding destroy() calls in parent
d-tors helped with some of crashes but
Hi,
I am evaluating D for future projects and coming from C++ I find
it really hard to understand semantics of destruction of
GC-managed code.
After many application-shutdown crashes caused by invalid order
of class destructor calls I really think I need to change the way
I am thinking abou
58 matches
Mail list logo
