www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Enough man!! (was Re: What is it? Syntax...)

reply Tom <Tom_member pathlink.com> writes:
[...]

Whisper syntax may not have problems according to order of evaluation, but it's
a really inconvenient notation since it's clearly not what opCall was "created"
for.
Seems nothing but UNNATURAL notation and really looks like a hack to me. That's
the original reason of this thread. Someone was confused by the language abuse
"whisper syntax" is. So, I can't agree for it to be encouraged. (Plus I don't
like it at all :-) )

OTOH, Manfred, you can't be serious. I really don't care what the specs states
for because it may be still erroneous or incomplete (someday it'll stop to be
this way when it grows up to a mature documentation).

Here and in the China 'x.a().b().c()' can't be evaluated in some odd way like if
it was another algebraic expression (being of course that these are non-static
methods). It's clearly equal to 'c(b(a(x)))' and if it's not, think I'll have to
start over again my CS course of studies because I misconceived everything since
the beginning (it's just a speech, no way i'd do that :-) ).

Tom
Dec 10 2005
parent reply John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dng1u9$78g$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tom says...
[...]

Whisper syntax may not have problems according to order of evaluation, but it's
a really inconvenient notation since it's clearly not what opCall was "created"
for.
Seems nothing but UNNATURAL notation and really looks like a hack to me. That's
the original reason of this thread. Someone was confused by the language abuse
"whisper syntax" is. So, I can't agree for it to be encouraged. (Plus I don't
like it at all :-) )

I can't keep this back any longer... So you don't like it. That summarizes your opinion. Abuses opCall? No it doesn't. What do you think opCall is for? Innovation? Originality? D is about being creative and "whisper" syntax is trying out something new. If Walter wanted to pigeon-whole people into a singular programming paradigm, he would have eliminated features like operator overloading and templates. C++ does even worse, in my opinion, when it uses "<<" and ">>" for streams. "Whisper" on the other hand uses syntax that is common to all aspects of programming expressions: "()" Unnatural notation? What is natural/unnatural about it? From my perpsective it looks expressive and clean... and quite natural. If it's unnatural from what your used to, well that's not surprising. New ideas have a nasty habit of being that way. All your criticisms have no bearing on the argument discussed in this thread . And contrary to what your topic title intends, your opinions -- as is the case of most subjective opinions -- does nothing but fuel the already raging fire here: You chastise Kris for creating an orignal idea; you chastise Manfred for not making any sense. Do you think you are going to clear up this issue this way? You certainly won't gain the respect of either individual, I assure you. In short, give people some space. You may choose not to like these new ideas, but be open to innovation and let others make up there minds. Forcing your opinion on people won't help. You're certainly free to give your opinions on the matter, but providing statements without clearly thought out reasons is of no benefit to your readers. So describe why it's unnatural. By what standard do you make this assessment? Why is it opCall abuse? Is there a rule somewhere that states this is so? Why does it look like a hack? Have you examined the mango source? Have you seen if the code looks like a hack in this area? (I assure you it does not). The root of this whole issue _might_ merely be D Language documentation/specification, which is Walter's realm. Otherwise I see no other problems with it... and I think we should continue to _encourage_ all sorts of innovation to take D to the limit of it's abilities. This process alone will be the means of guaranteeing that the language specification is purged of all ambiguities. -JJR
Dec 10 2005
next sibling parent reply J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dng5un$aem$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
In article <dng1u9$78g$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tom says...
[...]

Whisper syntax may not have problems according to order of evaluation, but it's
a really inconvenient notation since it's clearly not what opCall was "created"
for.
Seems nothing but UNNATURAL notation and really looks like a hack to me. That's
the original reason of this thread. Someone was confused by the language abuse
"whisper syntax" is. So, I can't agree for it to be encouraged. (Plus I don't
like it at all :-) )

I can't keep this back any longer... So you don't like it. That summarizes your opinion. Abuses opCall? No it doesn't. What do you think opCall is for? Innovation? Originality? D is about being creative and "whisper" syntax is trying out something new. If Walter wanted to pigeon-whole people into a singular programming paradigm, he would have eliminated features like operator overloading and templates.

Indeed. I'd go even farther and assert that Walter even endorsed the "whisper" syntax (back in 2003). See http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/18945.html jcc7
Dec 10 2005
next sibling parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
J C Calvarese wrote:

[...]
 Indeed. I'd go even farther and assert that Walter even endorsed
 the "whisper" syntax (back in 2003). See
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/18945.html 

... and my comments on whisper syntax not beeing safe and how to enhance the language to make them useful reach as far back as http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/26477.html
Dec 10 2005
parent reply Ivan Senji <ivan.senji_REMOVE_ _THIS__gmail.com> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:
 J C Calvarese wrote:
 
 [...]
 
Indeed. I'd go even farther and assert that Walter even endorsed
the "whisper" syntax (back in 2003). See
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/18945.html 

.... and my comments on whisper syntax not beeing safe and how to enhance the language to make them useful reach as far back as http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/26477.html

OK, we will not discuss whisper syntax because it is safe, but i would like to make a comment on your syntax proposal. I like it and i think it could be usefull, but you made a fatal mistake in those posts that you didn't explain why would anyone want it. This NG likes examples. If i was proposing something like that (like I am now) i would have said: Often i find myself wanting to pass a group of varargs to a function. How about this new syntax: int compareGroupsOfNumbers(int[] nums1...; int[] nums2...) { if(nums1.length > nums2.length) .... } Then you could call this method this way: compareGroupsOfNumbers(1,2,3,4; 5,6,7,8); This syntax change doesn't interfer with other function delcarations and calls in the language, and there could be a few simple rules about using multiple varargs lists (for example: * if there is only one vararg list, everything like before) * if there are more than one or there is just one but not the last argument then it must be followed by ; PS I really like this idea, why not revive it at least as a possible 2.0 feature?
Dec 11 2005
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
Ivan Senji wrote:

[...]
 I like it and i think it could be usefull, but you made a fatal
 mistake in those posts that you didn't explain why would anyone
 want it. This NG likes examples.

I described the usefulness in four postings, starting with http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/26867.html [...]
 PS I really like this idea, why not revive it at least as a
 possible 2.0 feature?

This is a must for 1.0 unless D is able to detect the ambiguities reported in digitalmars.D.bugs/4713 -manfred
Dec 11 2005
parent Ivan Senji <ivan.senji_REMOVE_ _THIS__gmail.com> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:
 Ivan Senji wrote:
 
 [...]
 
I like it and i think it could be usefull, but you made a fatal
mistake in those posts that you didn't explain why would anyone
want it. This NG likes examples.

I described the usefulness in four postings, starting with http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/26867.html

Ok, i missed that. I see you like mathematical-proof-like posts ;)
 
 
 [...]
 
PS I really like this idea, why not revive it at least as a
possible 2.0 feature?

This is a must for 1.0 unless D is able to detect the ambiguities reported in digitalmars.D.bugs/4713

It would be really great. But i know how hard it is to get Walter convinced to add a feature, that is why i was talking about 2.0. I also know how little time it would probably take Walter to implement it. :)
Dec 11 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:
"J C Calvarese" <technocrat7 gmail.com> wrote
 Indeed. I'd go even farther and assert that Walter even endorsed the 
 "whisper"
 syntax (back in 2003). See 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/18945.html

Well, I'll be dipped in dogshit ... had no idea this had happened at all. It's funny reading through it, since all the same issues and options occured within mango.io early on (no surprise there!); right down to the notion of using '~' and the '[' ']' operators. Turned out that reading needs a bit more hand-holding than writing, and using opCall allows for more than one parameter per call. That's why Mango settled on it as a 'standard'. Got to hand it to you ... if anyone ever needs to find anything at all D related, just ask JCC ;-) (a private jest)
Dec 10 2005
parent reply John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dnghut$ljl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...

Got to hand it to you ... if anyone ever needs to find anything at all D 
related, just ask JCC ;-)

(a private jest) 

I'll say! Justin is pratically a bloodhound! I don't know how he does it. -JJR
Dec 10 2005
parent J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dngjt9$n7q$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
In article <dnghut$ljl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...

Got to hand it to you ... if anyone ever needs to find anything at all D 
related, just ask JCC ;-)

(a private jest) 

I'll say! Justin is pratically a bloodhound! I don't know how he does it. -JJR

Muhahahaha! Actually, it wasn't hard at all. It was just luck. I had a vague memory that Walter had a post called "trial balloon" for another way of doing type-safe console output before he came up with writef/wrifeln (I couldn't remember for sure that it was "whisper" with opCall, but I thought it might be). I found it by googling for "trial balloon" within the archives and it turned out to be the highly-controversial "whisper" syntax. He doesn't seem to be so much against it if he's actually suggested it! jcc7
Dec 11 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <ben.hinkle gmail.com> writes:
 Indeed. I'd go even farther and assert that Walter even endorsed the 
 "whisper"
 syntax (back in 2003). See 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/18945.html

You'll remember he was experimenting with replacements for printf and that was one of his "trial balloons". He later implemented writef as the D replacement for printf. So I wouldn't exactly say overloading opCall for I/O was "endorsed" by Walter. He tried it out and rejected it.
Dec 11 2005
parent J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dnhl9c$2o2h$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
 Indeed. I'd go even farther and assert that Walter even endorsed the 
 "whisper"
 syntax (back in 2003). See 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/18945.html

You'll remember he was experimenting with replacements for printf and that was one of his "trial balloons". He later implemented writef as the D replacement for printf. So I wouldn't exactly say overloading opCall for I/O was "endorsed" by Walter. He tried it out and rejected it.

Well, I don't think he'd have suggested it if he thought it was an horrible idea, but I guess "endorsed" is too strong. I only have a vague memory of these discussions, but I was thinking that he dropped it because he had a lot of negative criticism. I don't recall whether the criticism were more about style or more about substance. jcc7
Dec 11 2005
prev sibling parent reply Tom <Tom_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dng5un$aem$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
In article <dng1u9$78g$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tom says...
[...]

Whisper syntax may not have problems according to order of evaluation, but it's
a really inconvenient notation since it's clearly not what opCall was "created"
for.


I was clearly wrong in this one.
Seems nothing but UNNATURAL notation and really looks like a hack to me.


Just unnatural would have been enough in this sentence :)
 That's
the original reason of this thread. Someone was confused by the language abuse
"whisper syntax" is. So, I can't agree for it to be encouraged. (Plus I don't
like it at all :-) )


People may encounter whisper syntax confusing, as the original post states I think. Not an abuse, don't know what was happening to me when I wrote about the abuse. I'm not in my best moment.
I can't keep this back any longer...

Don't restrain your anger for so long :). It was not my intention to offend you nor anybody in this matter. Though reading my post again makes me realize it was a little too rough and I beg your pardon.
So you don't like it.  That summarizes your opinion.  

Abuses opCall? No it doesn't.  What do you think opCall is for?  Innovation?
Originality?  D is about being creative and "whisper" syntax is trying out
something new.  If Walter wanted to pigeon-whole people into a singular
programming paradigm, he would have eliminated features like operator
overloading and templates.  

Sorry on this, not an abuse, my mistake.
C++ does even worse, in my opinion, when it uses "<<" and ">>" for streams.

Why?!
"Whisper" on the other hand uses syntax that is common to all aspects of
programming expressions: "()"

And so what? Maybe the fact that it's a new syntax upsets me a little, this could be what I feel about whisper. It seems unnatural maybe just because of this, I admit it, maybe I should open my mind in this issue, i'll do my best.
Unnatural notation?  What is natural/unnatural about it? From my perpsective it
looks expressive and clean... and quite natural.  If it's unnatural from what
your used to, well that's not surprising. New ideas have a nasty habit of being
that way.  

All your criticisms have no bearing on the argument discussed in this thread.

So how is that?
And contrary to what your topic title intends, your opinions -- as is the case
of most subjective opinions -- does nothing but fuel the already raging fire
here: You chastise Kris for creating an orignal idea;  you chastise Manfred for
not making any sense.  Do you think you are going to clear up this issue this
way?  You certainly won't gain the respect of either individual, I assure you.

You're right that this would not dim the fire of the discussion. That wasn't my intention at all. I was wrong with the title of the post, it wasn't to be taken so seriously and "chastise" IS NOT the word to describe my intentions over Kris's & Manfred's opinions/posts. Wasn't my intention to be so rude in my criticism, just imagine a smile in my face while I was writing it :D. I hope they doesn't take it that seriously.
In short, give people some space.  You may choose not to like these new ideas,
but be open to innovation and let others make up there minds.  Forcing your
opinion on people won't help.  You're certainly free to give your opinions on
the matter, but providing statements without clearly thought out reasons is of
no benefit to your readers.  

So describe why it's unnatural.  By what standard do you make this assessment?
Why is it opCall abuse?  Is there a rule somewhere that states this is so?  Why
does it look like a hack?  Have you examined the mango source?  Have you seen if
the code looks like a hack in this area? (I assure you it does not).

I didn't say Mango looks like a hack nor that the code is a hack. I don't really know and I don't care at all. I just criticized the whisper notation in general.
The root of this whole issue _might_ merely be D Language
documentation/specification, which is Walter's realm.  Otherwise I see no other
problems with it... and I think we should continue to _encourage_ all sorts of
innovation to take D to the limit of it's abilities.  This process alone will be
the means of guaranteeing that the language specification is purged of all
ambiguities.

I have to agree, at last :). Tom PS: I'll be a lot more careful with my opinions and with the way I express them in the future.
Dec 10 2005
next sibling parent reply John Reimer <John_member pathlink.com> writes:
Tom,

Your response to my response took me by surprise.

Thank you for bearing with me also.  You showed much more forbearance than I
expected from reading your original post.  I obviously misjudged the person to
whom I was responding.  Obviously my annoyance with the whole thing wasn't
helping me either. :-D

Take care,

John Reimer
Dec 10 2005
parent Tom <Tom_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dngddr$hqq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
Tom,

Your response to my response took me by surprise.

Thank you for bearing with me also.  You showed much more forbearance than I
expected from reading your original post.  I obviously misjudged the person to
whom I was responding.  

You are welcome but you were right in the most. I make often such mistakes when 'talking' too much (then I reread and it pops up the stupidity of my sayings) and that's why I prefer in the most cases to shut my mouth or better think very well what I'll say. It's sometimes hard to contain the little fascist inside me :D
Obviously my annoyance with the whole thing wasn't
helping me either. :-D

Yes, I can tell it happened to me the same. I wrote nonsense because of not thinking deeply my words nor the real concepts involved, and as you say, I released my "anger" after reading all that previous posts.
Take care,

You too. Tom
Dec 11 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:
"Tom" <Tom_member pathlink.com> wrote...
 PS: I'll be a lot more careful with my opinions and with the way I express 
 them in the future.

FWIW, both Matthew and I have lamented in the past over the "aggressiveness" often exhibited here. The kind of tone set in these "discussions" is often what drives people away from the NG. Speaking personally, I just gave up in the end and copped an attitude just as belligerent ~ sometimes more so. That's a piss-poor situation, and it's why I and others often disappear for long stretches (for which, some may be grateful). However, I have a litmus test ~ whenever I see JJR losing any of his usual happy demeanour, I know things have gone too far! At that point, it's time to step away from the crack-pipe. As an aside, experience has shown the smaller and more focused forums to be *far* more productive, and an entirely pleasant and jolly place to discuss D or anything else. The very same people who are at each others throats here can actually be productive together (and I've yet to see even one flame at dsource.org). At the same time, this newsgroup/asylum/circus is currently the one place to stay up-to-date. It's phsycotic, it's totally irrational, it's often painful. Yet that seems to be human nature. Daft. I'm just content that JJR is such a level-headed individual, and that he continues to stick around.
Dec 11 2005
next sibling parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dni6b8$t7t$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
"Tom" <Tom_member pathlink.com> wrote...
 PS: I'll be a lot more careful with my opinions and with the way I express 
 them in the future.

FWIW, both Matthew and I have lamented in the past over the "aggressiveness" often exhibited here. The kind of tone set in these "discussions" is often what drives people away from the NG. Speaking personally, I just gave up in the end and copped an attitude just as belligerent ~ sometimes more so.

I've got to chuckle; AFAICT, The OP, 'MicroWizard' (aka Tamás), hasn't taken part in the thread since he started it. I'm seeing this cartoon bubble of someone just realizing that they accidently pulled the pin on a grenade... <g>
Dec 11 2005
parent reply pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dniv4o$2j7r$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
I'm seeing this cartoon bubble of someone just realizing that they accidently
pulled the pin on a grenade...

::sigh:: I guess that would be me -- Notice I kept my head down. Next time I'll shout "incomming" instead. :( I didn't see the huge warning sign on a particular post when I requested clarifcation about all this. Anyway, the status quo is just fine by me (whisper syntax and all), but I'm starting to think we could use a FAQ to at least point out what's already been debated a thousand times over. At the very least we need a 'dueling' protocol that can be handled on the wiki -- someplace to contain these "flavors" of threads. - EricAnderton at yahoo Dr. Nick: "'Inflammable' means 'flammable'?! Argh, what a country!"
Dec 11 2005
parent reply JT <JT_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dnj0nc$2m7k$1 digitaldaemon.com>, pragma says...
In article <dniv4o$2j7r$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
I'm seeing this cartoon bubble of someone just realizing that they accidently
pulled the pin on a grenade...

::sigh:: I guess that would be me -- Notice I kept my head down. Next time I'll shout "incomming" instead. :( I didn't see the huge warning sign on a particular post when I requested clarifcation about all this. Anyway, the status quo is just fine by me (whisper syntax and all), but I'm starting to think we could use a FAQ to at least point out what's already been debated a thousand times over. At the very least we need a 'dueling' protocol that can be handled on the wiki -- someplace to contain these "flavors" of threads. - EricAnderton at yahoo Dr. Nick: "'Inflammable' means 'flammable'?! Argh, what a country!"

what about setting up some sort of D Language utility project wiki on dsource trac where FAQs and ideas can go?
Dec 11 2005
parent pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dnj24p$2ntt$1 digitaldaemon.com>, JT says...
what about setting up some sort of D Language utility project wiki on dsource
trac where FAQs and ideas can go?

Well I was thinking more along the lines of traditional moderated newsgroups, where the FAQ is posted to the group itself at regular intervals. A wiki is a much more modern, and practial solution (we're not moderated) though. I'm not particularily fond of the color scheme and layout of the wiki4D, but it's certainly neutral territory, and would be a good place for such a FAQ. I love dsource, but I think setting up a trac instance purely for the sake of having a wiki is a little overkill. - EricAnderton at yahoo
Dec 12 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent J C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
In article <dni6b8$t7t$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
That's a piss-poor situation, and it's why I and others often disappear for 
long stretches (for which, some may be grateful). However, I have a litmus 
test ~ whenever I see JJR losing any of his usual happy demeanour, I know 
things have gone too far! At that point, it's time to step away from the 
crack-pipe.

That's probably a good rule of thumb. JJR has a lot more patience than I do.
As an aside, experience has shown the smaller and more focused forums to be 
*far* more productive, and an entirely pleasant and jolly place to discuss D 
or anything else. The very same people who are at each others throats here 
can actually be productive together (and I've yet to see even one flame at 
dsource.org). At the same time, this newsgroup/asylum/circus is currently 
the one place to stay up-to-date. It's phsycotic, it's totally irrational, 
it's often painful. Yet that seems to be human nature. Daft.

The discussions at dsource.org tend to be a lot more focused on a particular project or task than they are here (at least until they go way off topic and become about philosophy books or bird graphics). And people certainly don't complain about you discussing the unDig library (if you're in the unDig forum). But I think if you're lobbying for a feature to add to D or change in D, you'd post here to have the greater chance of Walter seeing it (not that he's not welcome to read the forums at dsource.org).
I'm just content that JJR is such a level-headed individual, and that he 
continues to stick around.

Me too. jcc7
Dec 11 2005
prev sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Kris, that's an extremely gracious assessment of my periodic outbursts. 
  Thank you for the kind words.

Just don't have a chat with any of my family members or work 
colleagues... they might have something else to say about that... 
promise? ;-)

-JJR
Dec 12 2005