www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Whispering ... Cool down please!

reply MicroWizard <MicroWizard_member pathlink.com> writes:
I have to apologize. I never tought that my simple message will make so big
storm.

I only wanted to know what an example does.
I (hope I) am experienced C++ programmer as you all.
I like D since it's syntax is clear and the compiler is powerful.

I read most of the posts, thank you all for the very detailed
explanations, pros&cons. I've learned a lot.

BUT:
Mango is a great trial, but it lacks documentation and contains a lot of
_whishpered_ notations, techniques.
I do not believe that serious programmers will soon use it.
I trust only MY codes OR codes what I easily understand.
Such small syntax sugars could stop understanding for hours.
Programmers does not have hours to understand things.

Keep the syntax unambigous and easy to understand.
Walter does a very good job in it.

It is only _my_ opinion.
Blame me if you think ;-)

Tamás Nagy
Dec 12 2005
parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:42:40 +0000 (UTC), MicroWizard wrote:

 I have to apologize. I never tought that my simple message will make so big
 storm.
 
 I only wanted to know what an example does.
 I (hope I) am experienced C++ programmer as you all.

I am not a C++ programmer (and proud of it).
 I like D since it's syntax is clear and the compiler is powerful.

Me too.
 I read most of the posts, thank you all for the very detailed
 explanations, pros&cons. I've learned a lot.
 
 BUT:
 Mango is a great trial, but it lacks documentation and contains a lot of
 _whishpered_ notations, techniques.
 I do not believe that serious programmers will soon use it.
 I trust only MY codes OR codes what I easily understand.
 Such small syntax sugars could stop understanding for hours.

Why? All one has to learn is that the syntax form object(A)(B)(C)...(Z); is equivalent to object.opCall(A); object.opCall(B); object.opCall(C); . . . object.opCall(Z); It doesn't take all that long to learn a new thing in a new programming language.
 Programmers does not have hours to understand things.

Minutes really. It isn't that hard to grasp.
 Keep the syntax unambigous and easy to understand.

Let's all go back to COBOL then.
 Walter does a very good job in it.

Mostly.
 It is only _my_ opinion.
 Blame me if you think ;-)

Same here ;-) -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia 12/12/2005 11:04:56 PM
Dec 12 2005
parent reply MicroWizard <MicroWizard_member pathlink.com> writes:
I am not a C++ programmer (and proud of it).

 BUT:
 Mango is a great trial, but it lacks documentation and contains a lot of
 _whishpered_ notations, techniques.
 I do not believe that serious programmers will soon use it.
 I trust only MY codes OR codes what I easily understand.
 Such small syntax sugars could stop understanding for hours.

Why? All one has to learn is that the syntax form ... It doesn't take all that long to learn a new thing in a new programming language.
 Programmers does not have hours to understand things.

Minutes really. It isn't that hard to grasp.

Here at my actual workplace we are full of "smarties" (I do not know the correct english word, we use "okos tojás" in Hungary which can be translated to "smart egg") who are always ready to tell what to change/optimize/refactor/reinvent/reimplement instead of clarify and finish things. Now we are at the 60% of time but 10% of functionality, and the plans are still floating. This is not the way of producing good product in a reasonable time. I did good products, I managed good teams, where the guys used C++ (knowing it's problems) effectively. We used coding standards and it worked. So I feel theoretically you are right, but practically I am not a computer (as most of us), I am not able to really use (adapt) things so fast. I am effective in techniques only, which I understand fully with their implications too.
 Keep the syntax unambigous and easy to understand.

Let's all go back to COBOL then.

 Walter does a very good job in it.


Efficent, optimized, fast ... there must be balance.
 It is only _my_ opinion.
 Blame me if you think ;-)


Fundamentally we agree :-) Tamás Nagy
Dec 12 2005
next sibling parent reply pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dnjrp8$1bfe$1 digitaldaemon.com>, MicroWizard says...
Here at my actual workplace we are full of "smarties"
(I do not know the correct english word, we use "okos tojás" in Hungary
which can be translated to "smart egg")

If it helps, Tamás, I think the closest expression in English would be "egghead", which can mean "smart guy" but usually only if you're talking about yourself. See below: Princeton wordnet: Egghead - an intellectual; a very studious and academic person Wikipedia: Egghead - In the slang of the United States, egghead was an anti-intellectual epithet, directed at people considered too out-of-touch with ordinary people and too lacking in realism, common sense, virility, etc. on account of their intellectual interests. As it has a double-meaning, I guess you could think of it as being in the same category as "nerd", "geek", "hacker" or "otaku" -- some of which are probably just as good as "egghead", depending on who you're talking about. :) - EricAnderton at yahoo
Dec 12 2005
parent reply Deewiant <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> writes:
pragma wrote:
 In article <dnjrp8$1bfe$1 digitaldaemon.com>, MicroWizard says...
 
Here at my actual workplace we are full of "smarties"
(I do not know the correct english word, we use "okos tojás" in Hungary
which can be translated to "smart egg")

If it helps, Tamás, I think the closest expression in English would be "egghead", which can mean "smart guy" but usually only if you're talking about yourself. See below: Princeton wordnet: Egghead - an intellectual; a very studious and academic person Wikipedia: Egghead - In the slang of the United States, egghead was an anti-intellectual epithet, directed at people considered too out-of-touch with ordinary people and too lacking in realism, common sense, virility, etc. on account of their intellectual interests. As it has a double-meaning, I guess you could think of it as being in the same category as "nerd", "geek", "hacker" or "otaku" -- some of which are probably just as good as "egghead", depending on who you're talking about. :) - EricAnderton at yahoo

I got the impression of something more along the lines of "wise guy", "smart aleck", or "smarty-pants". "Egghead" refers to actually smart people - geeks, essentially, as you said - whereas what MicroWizard said was that the people in question "are always ready to tell what to change/optimize/refactor/reinvent/reimplement instead of clarify and finish things". That is, people who, instead of doing work, claim to be completely capable of doing the work better than anybody who's currently doing it. Why they're not doing it can sometimes be attributed to laziness, but more often to incompetence - they're actually just boasting, they can't actually do what they claim.
Dec 12 2005
parent reply John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Deewiant wrote:

 I got the impression of something more along the lines of "wise guy", "smart
 aleck", or "smarty-pants".
 
 "Egghead" refers to actually smart people - geeks, essentially, as you said -
 whereas what MicroWizard said was that the people in question "are always ready
 to tell what to change/optimize/refactor/reinvent/reimplement instead of
clarify
 and finish things". That is, people who, instead of doing work, claim to be
 completely capable of doing the work better than anybody who's currently doing
 it. Why they're not doing it can sometimes be attributed to laziness, but more
 often to incompetence - they're actually just boasting, they can't actually do
 what they claim.

Yeah... that sounds more like what he was talking about. "Smart aleck" hit me when I was reading his post. -JJR
Dec 12 2005
parent reply pragma <pragma_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <dnkh4s$2760$1 digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
Deewiant wrote:

 I got the impression of something more along the lines of "wise guy", "smart
 aleck", or "smarty-pants".
 
 "Egghead" refers to actually smart people - geeks, essentially, as you said -
 whereas what MicroWizard said was that the people in question "are always ready
 to tell what to change/optimize/refactor/reinvent/reimplement instead of
clarify
 and finish things". That is, people who, instead of doing work, claim to be
 completely capable of doing the work better than anybody who's currently doing
 it. Why they're not doing it can sometimes be attributed to laziness, but more
 often to incompetence - they're actually just boasting, they can't actually do
 what they claim.

Yeah... that sounds more like what he was talking about. "Smart aleck" hit me when I was reading his post.

Gotcha, that one got by me... thanks guys for clearing things up. :) - EricAnderton at yahoo
Dec 12 2005
parent MicroWizard <MicroWizard_member pathlink.com> writes:
Thank you all, you got it.

Nice day!
I've learned new D syntax sugar and perfect/practical english phrases too ;-))

Nagy Tamás

P.S: If you have develop in M$dotnet ... ESCAPE!

Yeah... that sounds more like what he was talking about.  "Smart aleck" 
hit me when I was reading his post.

Gotcha, that one got by me... thanks guys for clearing things up. :) - EricAnderton at yahoo

Dec 12 2005
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> writes:
MicroWizard wrote:
 
 So I feel theoretically you are right, but practically I am not 
 a computer (as most of us), I am not able to really use (adapt) things so fast.

-- Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student "Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."
Dec 14 2005
next sibling parent Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 MicroWizard wrote:
 
 So I feel theoretically you are right, but practically I am not a 
 computer (as most of us), I am not able to really use (adapt) things 
 so fast.


I once thought I were a computer... I was studying some Assembly programming and thinking a lot about it. I remember one evening when I was falling asleep, I seriously wondered which interrupts I was calling to make me sleep :P -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d-pu s+: a-->----- C+++$>++++ UL P+ L+ E--- W++ N++ o? K? w++ !O !M V? PS- PE- Y PGP t 5 X? R tv-- b DI- D+ G e>+++ h>++ !r !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Tomasz Stachowiak /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
Dec 14 2005
prev sibling parent MicroWizard <MicroWizard_member pathlink.com> writes:
 So I feel theoretically you are right, but practically I am not 
 a computer (as most of us), I am not able to really use (adapt) things so fast.


There are two answers :-) 1.) Yes, most of us are computers and are able to define a complex new syntax/technique/technology/whatsoever and use it _perfectly_ in the next millisecond. Am I right, aren't I? And I am an exceptionally stupid one being only a slow thinking human. (((Maybe you have already experienced the mentioned behaviour somewhere :-))) 2.) No. But I am not a native english speaker so it is not so easy to express myself ;-))) Tamás Nagy
Dec 15 2005