D Language
-
Any opinions about?? Looks very promising ... http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[^] 2 bugs found. > recompile ... 65534 bugs found. :doh:
Frankly, the defensive tone of the language overview sounds naive. They glibly explain away C++ features that D does not support by saying "it's not reliable" or "it's clumsy" or "the compiler implementation is too complex" without providing a rationale. Their motivation is suspect as well. "Who better to design a language than people who write compilers?" That's crap. The most suitable people to design a programming language are the ones who need to use it, so that it has the features they need and doesn't have the problems they don't want. If I wanted a new programming language, I would specify it, and then contract a compiler writer to implement it.
Software Zen:
delete this; // [Fold With Us!](http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos_who.asp?msg=1307432&id=10338#xx1307432xx)[[^](http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos_who.asp?msg=1307432&id=10338#xx1307432xx "New Window")] -
Daniel Turini wrote:
An abomination
I think this is like everything, it depends on how you use it. Templates can be a real abomination when they are not use as should be. Templates are awesome if used in a proper way. ~RaGE();
Rage wrote:
I think this is like everything, it depends on how you use it.
But some things have little use besides doing bad things. Such is the case with nested functions. It's hard to explain why one would need a nested function in an OO language if you can mark a member private. If you're nesting functions you should consider creating a new class. From the Churchdown Parish Magazine: "Would the Congregation please note that the bowl at the back of the Church, labelled 'For The Sick,' is for monetary donations only."
-
I had an attempt a few months ago, and it looks really promising. (AFAIK, there is also already D++). ~RaGE();
Rage wrote:
(AFAIK, there is also already D++)
well... as far the few material I can see, D++ is a completly different story ... I'ld not use the word "already" ... 2 bugs found. > recompile ... 65534 bugs found. :doh:
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I think it's better than any* of them.
I strongly disagree in case of C++
Aaah, C++ to me is like an old flame - I sometimes wonder if I'm still in love with it, but something holds me back from going to it. :-D Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
-
Any opinions about?? Looks very promising ... http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[^] 2 bugs found. > recompile ... 65534 bugs found. :doh:
Amazing. We're a programming site, and I for one appreciate info on interesting, even if arcane and "I will never use" languages, etc. Anyways, you got my 5. Thanks for the interesting link! Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
-
Frankly, the defensive tone of the language overview sounds naive. They glibly explain away C++ features that D does not support by saying "it's not reliable" or "it's clumsy" or "the compiler implementation is too complex" without providing a rationale. Their motivation is suspect as well. "Who better to design a language than people who write compilers?" That's crap. The most suitable people to design a programming language are the ones who need to use it, so that it has the features they need and doesn't have the problems they don't want. If I wanted a new programming language, I would specify it, and then contract a compiler writer to implement it.
Software Zen:
delete this; // [Fold With Us!](http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos_who.asp?msg=1307432&id=10338#xx1307432xx)[[^](http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos_who.asp?msg=1307432&id=10338#xx1307432xx "New Window")]Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
"Who better to design a language than people who write compilers?" That's crap.
However, wasn't that the motivation for C? To write a syntax to help with compiler optimization, so that language elements were actually closer to the native instruction set? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
-
Any opinions about?? Looks very promising ... http://www.digitalmars.com/d/[^] 2 bugs found. > recompile ... 65534 bugs found. :doh:
I am aware of it for quite some time now, and even had a chance to discuss (online) with its creator Walter Bright. In short, I am not impressed: D is another attempt to "fix" C++, and does that by making it even bigger and more complex. Also, it introduces a mandatory GC, although it has support for RAII as well. Benchmarks show it is faster than C++ :~ but I am aware of benchmarks that show the same thing for Java - I have yet to see a fast non-trivial application written in either language.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
Amazing. We're a programming site, and I for one appreciate info on interesting, even if arcane and "I will never use" languages, etc. Anyways, you got my 5. Thanks for the interesting link! Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
Marc Clifton wrote:
Why did this get voted down?
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it. -- modified at 8:35 Friday 23rd December, 2005
-
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
"Who better to design a language than people who write compilers?" That's crap.
However, wasn't that the motivation for C? To write a syntax to help with compiler optimization, so that language elements were actually closer to the native instruction set? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
this reminds me of a comment in Stroustrup, where he said when he had to choose between making the C++ language more complex or making the compiler more complex he always chose to make the compiler more complex. zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness
-
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
"Who better to design a language than people who write compilers?" That's crap.
However, wasn't that the motivation for C? To write a syntax to help with compiler optimization, so that language elements were actually closer to the native instruction set? Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
IIRC, K&R said one of their goals for the language design for C was to keep the language constructs close to the machine architecture they were targetting. The motivation for that wasn't so much to make the compiler easier, but to make the code that language users wrote close to the native instruction set. I think the goal was to let the application developer optimize his code, rather than rely on the compiler to do it. Some of the FORTRAN compilers of that era were exploring optimization, and you ended up coding things in a particular way in order to force a given behavior out of the compiler. My comment was really based on my experience with Ada. Ada was designed by a bunch of academics with little or no experience in practical software development. These people were largely university researchers in compiler design. In the end, they created a language that was difficult to write, often problematic to compile successfully, and failed to serve its target audience (the U.S. Department of Defense).
Software Zen:
delete this; // [Fold With Us!](http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos_who.asp?msg=1307432&id=10338#xx1307432xx)[[^](http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos_who.asp?msg=1307432&id=10338#xx1307432xx "New Window")]