www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - D

reply "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
Reading the D feature list and "value propositions", I find much to my own 
way of thinking (and wonder if any of my own issues found there way into D's 
requirement list) as to what would be a great language. Right now, I'm not 
developing software. Well OK, I am, but not "real" software: I am developing 
software to develop software with! Naturally, this leads one to examine 
development tools, such as languages.

When I went to college, there was a BIG push to indoctrinate undergrads with 
PASCAL. When I got into an industry (engineering, not IT), there was that 
same push: the schools and companies were collaborating toward the PASCAL 
goal. PASCAL "did well" (Umm... for Borland?). I knew a FORTRAN a bit and 
did "minor" stuff with that (fixed ("refactored") existing code mostly, but 
wrote complete programs also) and quickly found C (eureka!). Tthis was circa 
IBM AT. The technology beyond my responsibility or capability but within the 
environment was recommissioned PDP-11s running CP/M recommissioned for 
realtime machine control (No, I never programmed those relics, though I 
rebooted them from time to time).

For me, C came in the flavor of Microsoft C and I still have The Waite 
Group's books next to me on my bookshelf, though I've not opened them in 
over a decade. (My "stacks" are in the basement in banker's boxes, but I 
know what I have down there). What WERE those "PASCAL pushers" thinking?! I 
think back to the maintainer (yes, there was just one) of all that 
mission-critical (potentially industry pivotal) FORTRAN code ... such sad 
lives software developers have. Those many many lines of FORTRAN were pretty 
much the work of one engineer (not all the the embedded theory of course, 
though he knew it intimately also, but the code). Not a "programmer" or an 
"IT person", an engineer (no, not a sofware engineer! Think, physics, 
runge-kutta, flame fronts and the theory of chaos, (OK, maybe not that last 
one, but he was old)). But I digress...

The gist of my post, well not really a gist, but for lack of having to use 
more human processing power than necessary (aka, my brain) right now (read, 
'gist' will do), I find it odd that a product having a lot of the same goals 
as the one I envision, is not one that I choose to use and that I search for 
another. (So much for the importance of "requirements specification" 
apparently?).

I did't have a question in starting this post, but having just gone through 
the harkening back (above) and back to reality now, I feel deja vu: C++ is 
now my FORTRAN, D is my PASCAL and my envisioned language is my C. I didn't 
put a question mark in there because I think that I have figured out my 
frustration with the current state of things. (Also, I'm so happy I'm not 
still a FORTRAN programmer! :) )

Is D today's PASCAL?

Tony
Nov 14 2008
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Tony <tonytech08 gmail.com> wrote:

Before I begin, know that the things I'm saying here are not meant as
attacks.  It's just that your post has a rambling, semi-off-topic feel
to it and so I'll do the same ;)


 When I went to college, there was a BIG push to indoctrinate undergrads with
 PASCAL. When I got into an industry (engineering, not IT), there was that
 same push: the schools and companies were collaborating toward the PASCAL
 goal. PASCAL "did well" (Umm... for Borland?). I knew a FORTRAN a bit and
 did "minor" stuff with that (fixed ("refactored") existing code mostly, but
 wrote complete programs also) and quickly found C (eureka!). Tthis was circa
 IBM AT. The technology beyond my responsibility or capability but within the
 environment was recommissioned PDP-11s running CP/M recommissioned for
 realtime machine control (No, I never programmed those relics, though I
 rebooted them from time to time).


Sounds a lot like Java in today's school/industry world.  Or maybe
.net, depending on who's funding the university's CS department.


 For me, C came in the flavor of Microsoft C and I still have The Waite
 Group's books next to me on my bookshelf, though I've not opened them in
 over a decade. (My "stacks" are in the basement in banker's boxes, but I
 know what I have down there). What WERE those "PASCAL pushers" thinking?! I
 think back to the maintainer (yes, there was just one) of all that
 mission-critical (potentially industry pivotal) FORTRAN code ... such sad
 lives software developers have. Those many many lines of FORTRAN were pretty
 much the work of one engineer (not all the the embedded theory of course,
 though he knew it intimately also, but the code). Not a "programmer" or an
 "IT person", an engineer (no, not a sofware engineer! Think, physics,
 runge-kutta, flame fronts and the theory of chaos, (OK, maybe not that last
 one, but he was old)). But I digress...


You digress?  That's an understatement; your post looks more like an
s-expression than like English ;)


 The gist of my post, well not really a gist, but for lack of having to use
 more human processing power than necessary (aka, my brain) right now (read,
 'gist' will do), I find it odd that a product having a lot of the same goals
 as the one I envision, is not one that I choose to use and that I search for
 another. (So much for the importance of "requirements specification"
 apparently?).


So.. what you're saying is that you agree with a lot of D's features,
but you find it odd that you don't use it?


 I did't have a question in starting this post, but having just gone through
 the harkening back (above) and back to reality now, I feel deja vu: C++ is
 now my FORTRAN, D is my PASCAL and my envisioned language is my C. I didn't
 put a question mark in there because I think that I have figured out my
 frustration with the current state of things. (Also, I'm so happy I'm not
 still a FORTRAN programmer! :) )


Wait.  Let me try to get this straight.

C++ is your "language that you use to do practical things, even if
it's not the best."  D is your "language that everyone is pushing for
reasons you don't understand."  And the language you want to make is
your "language that is awesome for everything."  Is that anywhere
close?


 Is D today's PASCAL?


If it had billions of dollars of corporate sponsorship and widespread
acceptance at universities and workplaces, I might say yes.  But even
if it were true, the entire philosophy behind the language is
different.  Pascal (it's not all caps, btw) was designed originally as
a learning language, and as such, people became familiar with it in
school, and started using it for real work.  Pascal is _meant_ to be
restrictive, structured, and simple.  It came about in a time when
structured programming was relatively new, and tried to teach people
about it.  Borland got lucky.

On the contrary, D is not meant to be a pedagogical language, or a
purist language, or anything like that.  It's meant to be a practical
language.  It's meant to provide answers to a lot of the irritating
aspects of C and C++ in a way that can still be implemented
efficiently.  It doesn't really try much new (well, D2 does..).  It
just takes a lot of existing, sensible ideas, and puts them together
into an attractive whole.

It's part of the reason why it's so great, and at the same time, why
it's so hard to sell.  You can't point at a single thing that makes D
awesome.  You can't say "it's a great beginner's language!" or "it's a
completely safe language (like Java)!" or "it's great for agile
programming like Ruby!"  It's just a ton of little things.

And of course, a language like this could only come from a sort of
grassroots source.  There is no corporate sponsorship.  There is no
governing body (well...).  There is no gaggle of professors trying to
make the language easier to pick up for new programmers (read:
businessmen) who are trying their damndest to cash in on this
"compooters thing".  And just as well, there is no money.  No
marketing, no bribes, nothing.  Which means no publicity.  D, or at
least the idea and specification of it, has been around for .. almost
ten years?  I think.  Maybe the spec was made in 1999 but not public
until 2001.  In any case, it's been a long and difficult road to get
the word out about the language.

So that's why I don't think D is like Pascal at all.  It's not
designed with a driving goal like Pascal.  And it's not backed by
corporate or academic sponsorship like Pascal.

(And to be honest, I'm still not sure what you think of Pascal.)
Nov 14 2008
next sibling parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:


 On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Tony <tonytech08 gmail.com> wrote:
 
 Before I begin, know that the things I'm saying here are not meant as
 attacks.  It's just that your post has a rambling, semi-off-topic feel
 to it and so I'll do the same ;)


wow. ye sure missed a career in diplomacy. you'd make ahmadinejad become a
feminist & join nato. i'd rate that post at no more than 200 monkey-minutes.
Nov 15 2008
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, superdan <super dan.org> wrote:

 you'd make ahmadinejad become a feminist & join nato. i'd rate that post at no
more than 200 monkey-minutes.


You have a way with not making any sense.  It's almost like you're a
Markov chain.
Nov 15 2008
next sibling parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:


 On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, superdan <super dan.org> wrote:

 you'd make ahmadinejad become a feminist & join nato. i'd rate that post at no
more than 200 monkey-minutes.


 
 You have a way with not making any sense.  It's almost like you're a
 Markov chain.


that receiver's off the hook eh. no problem i can explain that to you.

ahmadinejad is iran's president. a country staunchly discriminating against
women. and staunchly against western values. sayin' you'd make him become a
feminist & join nato is a hyperbole meaning yer persuasive. as persuasiveness
is begot by intelligence i retract that comment in wake of fresh evidence.

there's a famous infinite monkeys thing. if a million monkeys type randomly
forever they produce anything. like shakespeare's finest. sayin' i'd rate ton's
post at 200 monkey-minutes means it would take 200 monkeys one minute to write
his post. or 1 monkey in 200 minutes. see the product monkey * time is
constant. that also has some humor (see mythical man-month) but lets not get
too subtle.
Nov 15 2008
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM, superdan <super dan.org> wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:


 On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, superdan <super dan.org> wrote:

 you'd make ahmadinejad become a feminist & join nato. i'd rate that post at no
more than 200 monkey-minutes.


 You have a way with not making any sense.  It's almost like you're a
 Markov chain.


 that receiver's off the hook eh. no problem i can explain that to you.

 ahmadinejad is iran's president. a country staunchly discriminating against
women. and staunchly against western values. sayin' you'd make him become a
feminist & join nato is a hyperbole meaning yer persuasive. as persuasiveness
is begot by intelligence i retract that comment in wake of fresh evidence.

 there's a famous infinite monkeys thing. if a million monkeys type randomly
forever they produce anything. like shakespeare's finest. sayin' i'd rate ton's
post at 200 monkey-minutes means it would take 200 monkeys one minute to write
his post. or 1 monkey in 200 minutes. see the product monkey * time is
constant. that also has some humor (see mythical man-month) but lets not get
too subtle.


You're just a laugh a minute, dan.
Nov 15 2008
parent superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:


 On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM, superdan <super dan.org> wrote:

 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:


 On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, superdan <super dan.org> wrote:

 you'd make ahmadinejad become a feminist & join nato. i'd rate that post at no
more than 200 monkey-minutes.


 You have a way with not making any sense.  It's almost like you're a
 Markov chain.


 that receiver's off the hook eh. no problem i can explain that to you.

 ahmadinejad is iran's president. a country staunchly discriminating against
women. and staunchly against western values. sayin' you'd make him become a
feminist & join nato is a hyperbole meaning yer persuasive. as persuasiveness
is begot by intelligence i retract that comment in wake of fresh evidence.

 there's a famous infinite monkeys thing. if a million monkeys type randomly
forever they produce anything. like shakespeare's finest. sayin' i'd rate ton's
post at 200 monkey-minutes means it would take 200 monkeys one minute to write
his post. or 1 monkey in 200 minutes. see the product monkey * time is
constant. that also has some humor (see mythical man-month) but lets not get
too subtle.


 
 You're just a laugh a minute, dan.


glad da penny dropped & u finally laughed.
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply anonymous <anonymous hotmail.com> writes:
== Quote from superdan (super dan.org)'s article

 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:

 On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, superdan <super dan.org> wrote:

 you'd make ahmadinejad become a feminist & join nato. i'd rate that post at






no more than 200 monkey-minutes.

 You have a way with not making any sense.  It's almost like you're a
 Markov chain.


 that receiver's off the hook eh. no problem i can explain that to you.
 ahmadinejad is iran's president.


The president voted by the people is just a puppet president.
Even if he wanted to change things he wouldn't be able to do so.

----u said femenism

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has announced that women
will be allowed to attend football matches in big stadiums for the
first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Read further

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/25/iran.gender
http://www.meydaan.com/english/showarticle.aspx?arid=662
Nov 15 2008
parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
anonymous Wrote:


 == Quote from superdan (super dan.org)'s article

 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:

 On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, superdan <super dan.org> wrote:

 you'd make ahmadinejad become a feminist & join nato. i'd rate that post at






 no more than 200 monkey-minutes.

 You have a way with not making any sense.  It's almost like you're a
 Markov chain.


 that receiver's off the hook eh. no problem i can explain that to you.
 ahmadinejad is iran's president.


 
 The president voted by the people is just a puppet president.
 Even if he wanted to change things he wouldn't be able to do so.
 
 ----u said femenism


neh i said feminism.


 The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has announced that women
 will be allowed to attend football matches in big stadiums for the
 first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
 
 Read further
 
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/25/iran.gender
 http://www.meydaan.com/english/showarticle.aspx?arid=662


women watching soccer. i'm shocked. where's this world coming to. wut's next...
women driving!?!

funniest part is yer don't even realize how ironic yer response was.
Nov 15 2008
parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
superdan wrote:

 women watching soccer. i'm shocked. where's this world coming to. wut's
next... women driving!?!
 
 funniest part is yer don't even realize how ironic yer response was.
 


You don't seem to understand the concept of 'progress'. Even if 
Ahmadinejad were a passionate feminist, he couldn't achieve, say, 
suffrage for women in a matter of a couple years.
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling parent Daniel de Kok <daniel nowhere.nospam> writes:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:03:52 -0500, Jarrett Billingsley wrote:


 On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM, superdan <super dan.org> wrote:

 you'd make ahmadinejad become a feminist & join nato. i'd rate that
 post at no more than 200 monkey-minutes.


 
 You have a way with not making any sense.  It's almost like you're a
 Markov chain.


*grin*

So, did anyone get around to porting the Kant generator [1] to D for 
slightly more philosophical answers? ;)

-- Daniel

[1] See http://bert.debruijn.be/kgp/ and http://diveintopython.org/
xml_processing/
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.408.1226733543.3087.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Tony <tonytech08 gmail.com> wrote:

 Before I begin, know that the things I'm saying here are not meant as
 attacks.  It's just that your post has a rambling, semi-off-topic feel
 to it and so I'll do the same ;)


Choose your poison: mine is Merlot. (Good luck!). ( ;) ).


 When I went to college, there was a BIG push to indoctrinate undergrads 
 with
 PASCAL. When I got into an industry (engineering, not IT), there was that
 same push: the schools and companies were collaborating toward the PASCAL
 goal. PASCAL "did well" (Umm... for Borland?). I knew a FORTRAN a bit and
 did "minor" stuff with that (fixed ("refactored") existing code mostly, 
 but
 wrote complete programs also) and quickly found C (eureka!). Tthis was 
 circa
 IBM AT. The technology beyond my responsibility or capability but within 
 the
 environment was recommissioned PDP-11s running CP/M recommissioned for
 realtime machine control (No, I never programmed those relics, though I
 rebooted them from time to time).


 Sounds a lot like Java in today's school/industry world.


Really? I wouldn't know. That is sad. Java for elementary school maybe, but 
surely not college. Else it is "boiling in oil" (ask me, anyone, who is not 
familiar with the phrase).


  Or maybe
 .net, depending on who's funding the university's CS department.


"Gag me with a spoon!". Nuff said.


 For me, C came in the flavor of Microsoft C and I still have The Waite
 Group's books next to me on my bookshelf, though I've not opened them in
 over a decade. (My "stacks" are in the basement in banker's boxes, but I
 know what I have down there). What WERE those "PASCAL pushers" thinking?! 
 I
 think back to the maintainer (yes, there was just one) of all that
 mission-critical (potentially industry pivotal) FORTRAN code ... such sad
 lives software developers have. Those many many lines of FORTRAN were 
 pretty
 much the work of one engineer (not all the the embedded theory of course,
 though he knew it intimately also, but the code). Not a "programmer" or 
 an
 "IT person", an engineer (no, not a sofware engineer! Think, physics,
 runge-kutta, flame fronts and the theory of chaos, (OK, maybe not that 
 last
 one, but he was old)). But I digress...


 You digress?  That's an understatement; your post looks more like an
 s-expression than like English ;)


I guess YOU (emphasis on YOU) had to be there. :P


 The gist of my post, well not really a gist, but for lack of having to 
 use
 more human processing power than necessary (aka, my brain) right now 
 (read,
 'gist' will do), I find it odd that a product having a lot of the same 
 goals
 as the one I envision, is not one that I choose to use and that I search 
 for
 another. (So much for the importance of "requirements specification"
 apparently?).


 So.. what you're saying is that you agree with a lot of D's features,
 but you find it odd that you don't use it?


I wasn't suggesting any AGREEMENT (that is a legal term?). What I found odd, 
was that though the goals/requirements (some) are ones I want (some of 
them!), the end result is something I don't want to use. (Note that I am 
going to try to implement the language _I_ envision, be it just for fun or 
more... if nothing else, surely preprocessing C++ is in my future).


 I did't have a question in starting this post, but having just gone 
 through
 the harkening back (above) and back to reality now, I feel deja vu: C++ 
 is
 now my FORTRAN, D is my PASCAL and my envisioned language is my C. I 
 didn't
 put a question mark in there because I think that I have figured out my
 frustration with the current state of things. (Also, I'm so happy I'm not
 still a FORTRAN programmer! :) )


 Wait.  Let me try to get this straight.


OK.


 C++ is your "language that you use to do practical things, even if
 it's not the best."


Yes.


 D is your "language that everyone is pushing for
 reasons you don't understand."


No, not really, but I did feel "pushed" to use PASCAL. I investigate things 
just enough to say yeh or nay and don't waste anymore time (I'm not "PC 
Magazine" presenting data for mass consumption). Do I feel D as being 
pushed? Answer: no. So my though was not clear: at that early programming 
indoctrination period, I trusted my instincts and learned C! (Amidst 
engineers who where writing FORTRAN). Call me a rebel if you want, but I am 
not. I just chose what "felt right". Short answer: I chose C becausse of 
it's syntax.



 And the language you want to make is
 your "language that is awesome for everything."


No, NOT at all. My goal is to build software, The language is a side-effect.


 Is that anywhere
 close?


So, no. Not even.


 Is D today's PASCAL?


 If it had billions of dollars of corporate sponsorship and widespread
 acceptance at universities and workplaces, I might say yes.  But even
 if it were true, the entire philosophy behind the language is
 different.  Pascal (it's not all caps, btw)


"Good" trivia: Is the name of a once popular programming language 'PASCAL' 
or 'Pascal'? (I, OF COURSE, know that answer because I know that Louis 
Pascal was the one who put milk in a petri dish and discovered the cure to 
AIDS).

;)


 was designed originally as
 a learning language,


Sounds wrought with peril "designed as a learning <>". Hopefully, ideas of 
education have matured since those times.


 and as such, people became familiar with it in
 school, and started using it for real work.


Wait: Was it a real useful (reality) thing or not?! That would be luring 
those who can never be competent with the tool, potentially. So BAD idea.


  Pascal is _meant_ to be
 restrictive, structured, and simple.


Useless? Apparently not: Borland successfully LURED a percentage of C++ 
programmers to use it's GUI framework that is written in Louie! (er, I mean 
PASCAL... Pascal?).


  It came about in a time when
 structured programming was relatively new, and tried to teach people
 about it.  Borland got lucky.


I think it is still out there. Borland wasn't "lucky": how many C++ 
programmers do you know hacking Borland's PASCAL code?! My take on it: they 
did it wrong (on purpose) and marketed it succesfully (they made money).


 On the contrary, D is not meant to be a pedagogical language, or a
 purist language, or anything like that.  It's meant to be a practical
 language.


The obvious question is: where does the language domain end and the library 
domain begin?


  It's meant to provide answers to a lot of the irritating
 aspects of C and C++


But longs to be more than "just" that. I understand. (Not that I'm 
"agreeing").


  in a way that can still be implemented
 efficiently.  It doesn't really try much new (well, D2 does..).


Does it or doesn't it?! (It does). (Rhetorical, but feel free to respond).


  It
 just takes a lot of existing, sensible ideas, and puts them together
 into an attractive whole.


Apparently, I "beg to differ" on that last part: "into an attractive whole".


 It's part of the reason why it's so great,


Bias noted.


 and at the same time, why
 it's so hard to sell.


Of course: no one in their right mind would buy QUALITY! :P


  You can't point at a single thing that makes D
 awesome.


You said it, not me.


 You can't say "it's a great beginner's language!"


Unless I was a liar.


  or "it's a
 completely safe language (like Java)!"


As if if adults would chose to go back to their mother's womb?  Duh.


 or "it's great for agile
 programming like Ruby!"


Ah, flavor of the month process proponent? "Pair" programming anyone? 
(Seesh.).


  It's just a ton of little things.


Details don't make things "great" (your terminology).  D is not "great". If 
D is great, then I am good-looking! :P


 And of course, a language like this could only come from a sort of
 grassroots source.


No. You are propagandizing.


  There is no corporate sponsorship.


Which corporations though? Consider I knew that an engineering industry 
company was "pushing" PASCAL. They just saw $$$.


 There is no
 governing body (well...).


Was this one of those "ton of things?", cuz it would be very lame at trying 
to sell D as a viable alternative (that's what D wants to be right: a viable 
alternative to C++?).


  There is no gaggle of professors trying to
 make the language easier to pick up for new programmers (read:
 businessmen) who are trying their damndest to cash in on this
 "compooters thing".


Are you suggesting that professors do that? I have no knowledge of that.


  And just as well, there is no money.


I CAN agree with that: there is no money. (Said uncontextually).


 No
 marketing, no bribes, nothing.  Which means no publicity.


Are you hinting that D is a CHARITY!?


  D, or at
 least the idea and specification of it, has been around for .. almost
 ten years?


And I've been around for... nevermind that (!), but so what? I absolutely 
abhor Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. (Cuz they are playing that GAME?). 
(The lead vocals are like scratching fingernails on chalkboards, but do that 
to me over decades and "you win"? NOT!!! Sucked then, suck now.).


  I think.  Maybe the spec was made in 1999 but not public
 until 2001.  In any case, it's been a long and difficult road to get
 the word out about the language.


"The Word".  (The new and improved Bible to surpass the King James or 
Jehova's version?).


 So that's why I don't think D is like Pascal at all.


Uhh... surely they won't be calling on you to market the product! (No 
offense, but you suck at marketing).


 It's not
 designed with a driving goal like Pascal.


Please state PASCAL's "driving goal" please.


  And it's not backed by
 corporate or academic sponsorship like Pascal.


You are listing that as an asset then, right?


 (And to be honest, I'm still not sure what you think of Pascal.)


By now you do (?).

Tony
Nov 19 2008
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Tony <tonytech08 gmail.com> wrote:

 (...lots of stuff...)


I'm not actually going to reply to your post.  Not because I feel
you've "beaten" me or something, but because, well, you're obviously
unconvincable, and I don't feel like responding to each and every one
of your seventy-four thousand comments.  You post a thread asking if
people think D is the next "PASCAL" (it IS NOT all CAPS, by the way),
never really defining what you mean by that, and then promptly
disagree with most everything I say in my reply.  Okay.  I guess if
that works for you..
Nov 20 2008
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley:

 Okay.  I guess if that works for you..


D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and all
that), so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)
Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)

Bear hugs,
bearophile
Nov 20 2008
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and all
that),


so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)

 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it has
garbage
collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would have guessed that most
people only consider it to be of moderate difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do
down-and-dirty programming with pointers, manual memory management, etc. in it,
but you don't *have to* unless the nature of your problem domain would require
it
no matter what the language.
Nov 20 2008
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:54 PM, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and all
that),


 so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)

 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


 Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it has
garbage
 collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would have guessed that most
 people only consider it to be of moderate difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do
 down-and-dirty programming with pointers, manual memory management, etc. in it,
 but you don't *have to* unless the nature of your problem domain would require
it
 no matter what the language.


Or if you're absolutely obsessed with microperformance and attempt to
subvert the GC at every possible opportunity.

(Consider who you're replying to ;) )
Nov 20 2008
next sibling parent reply Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley escribió:

 On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:54 PM, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and all
that),


 so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)

 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


 Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it has
garbage
 collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would have guessed that most
 people only consider it to be of moderate difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do
 down-and-dirty programming with pointers, manual memory management, etc. in it,
 but you don't *have to* unless the nature of your problem domain would require
it
 no matter what the language.


 
 Or if you're absolutely obsessed with microperformance and attempt to
 subvert the GC at every possible opportunity.
 
 (Consider who you're replying to ;) )


Or if you are a template maniac.
Nov 20 2008
next sibling parent Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Ary Borenszweig escribió:

 Jarrett Billingsley escribió:

 On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:54 PM, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language 
 and all that),


 so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)

 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


 Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it 
 has garbage
 collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would have guessed 
 that most
 people only consider it to be of moderate difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do
 down-and-dirty programming with pointers, manual memory management, 
 etc. in it,
 but you don't *have to* unless the nature of your problem domain 
 would require it
 no matter what the language.


 Or if you're absolutely obsessed with microperformance and attempt to
 subvert the GC at every possible opportunity.

 (Consider who you're replying to ;) )


 
 Or if you are a template maniac.


I mean... if someone you code with is a template maniac, and you are 
not. :-P
Nov 20 2008
prev sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
 Or if you are a template maniac.


Did somone say my name? :<G>
Nov 20 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.26.1227226037.22690.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:54 PM, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and 
 all that),


 so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)

 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


 Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it has 
 garbage
 collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would have guessed that 
 most
 people only consider it to be of moderate difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do
 down-and-dirty programming with pointers, manual memory management, etc. 
 in it,
 but you don't *have to* unless the nature of your problem domain would 
 require it
 no matter what the language.


 Or if you're absolutely obsessed with microperformance and attempt to
 subvert the GC at every possible opportunity.

 (Consider who you're replying to ;) )


It seems that bearophile basically wants a GP / systems language and tools 
that are nearly as productive as the likes of Python but can also produce 
blazingly fast code. A pretty worthy goal, and I think that was the orginal 
blanket idea behind D anyway. To win mindshare I think D has to be able to 
do better than more established languages in both areas.

Look at the time and $$$ spent on making Java "fast". Not a trivial subject.

Besides, there has been in previous years a good deal of initial interest 
from members of two important groups where performance is vital: numeric and 
game software developers. Over the years and more often than not it seems, 
various members of both groups drop in to the NG's but end-up showing only a 
fleeting interest in D. Most of the reason I think is because performance 
isn't stellar, and even more that D (the language, as specified) doesn't 
offer any advantage in that regard over the tried and true like Fortran and 
C/++.

I don't think D will succeed without healthy backing from at least one of 
those groups. After all, if you're developing a "high-performance" language, 
customers of organizations who sell Fortran compilers, math and physics 
libraries and HPC hardware are pretty desirable to have on your side..

So bearophile might be onto something there...
Nov 20 2008
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Dave:

It seems that bearophile basically wants a GP / systems language and tools that
are nearly as productive as the likes of Python but can also produce blazingly
fast code.<


The things I like can't be summarized in few lines, but one of the things I
like more is the following.

Developing ShedSkin (that translates implicitly statically typed Python
programs ==> C++) I have seen that it can exist a language that at the same
time has a short and very handy syntax and produces very fast programs. The
"good" thing is that it doesn't require big inventions, all the necessary parts
exists already, to it's not a revolution (some people like revolutions, so this
isn't for them).
Languages like Genie, Delight, ShedSkin, Vala, Boo, Cython, Rpython, etc (and
OcaML too, probably), go in this direction. The D language too (with the right
libraries) can become almost handy.

The last two posts here show examples of what I mean:
http://leonardo-m.livejournal.com/72504.html
http://leonardo-m.livejournal.com/72754.html

In both situations a ShedSkin program is both shorter/cleaner and quite faster
than the D ones (the speed increase generally comes from GCC optimizing better
than DMD).

Bye,
bearophile
Nov 21 2008
parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
bearophile wrote:


 Dave:

It seems that bearophile basically wants a GP / systems language and tools
that are nearly as productive as the likes of Python but can also produce
blazingly fast code.<


 
 The things I like can't be summarized in few lines, but one of the things
 I like more is the following.
 
 Developing ShedSkin (that translates implicitly statically typed Python
 programs ==> C++) I have seen that it can exist a language that at the
 same time has a short and very handy syntax and produces very fast
 programs. The "good" thing is that it doesn't require big inventions, all
 the necessary parts exists already, to it's not a revolution (some people
 like revolutions, so this isn't for them). Languages like Genie, Delight,
 ShedSkin, Vala, Boo, Cython, Rpython, etc (and OcaML too, probably), go in
 this direction. The D language too (with the right libraries) can become
 almost handy.
 
 The last two posts here show examples of what I mean:
 http://leonardo-m.livejournal.com/72504.html
 http://leonardo-m.livejournal.com/72754.html
 
 In both situations a ShedSkin program is both shorter/cleaner and quite
 faster than the D ones (the speed increase generally comes from GCC
 optimizing better than DMD).


It must be stated that "cleaner" is in the eye of the beholder - IMO Python
does _not_ produce cleaner programs. It is harder to say how the implicitly
statically typed stuff of ShedSkin affects mantainability, but I guess one
could expect/hope for it to be better than normal Python.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Nov 21 2008
parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund:

 It must be stated that "cleaner" is in the eye of the beholder - IMO Python
does _not_ produce cleaner programs. It is harder to say how the implicitly
statically typed stuff of ShedSkin affects mantainability, but I guess one
could expect/hope for it to be better than normal Python.<


Oh, sorry, I have forgotten to add something in my post: In the end I don't
like ShedSkin much, because it used a huge amount of type inference, this makes
it slow, and maybe not scalable to programs larger than few thousand lines. (So
I like statically both typed languages and dynamically typed ones, and ones
with quick and smart type inferencing, but I don't like the heavy type
inferencing of ShedSkin).

Note that ShedSkin programs are quite less mantainable (and less safe) than
Python ones.

So I was talking about something more like Boo (that is mostly statically
typed).

Bye,
bearophile
Nov 21 2008
prev sibling parent "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
"Dave" <Dave_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:gg5dgl$277i$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.26.1227226037.22690.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:54 PM, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and 
 all that),


 so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)

 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


 Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it 
 has garbage
 collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would have guessed 
 that most
 people only consider it to be of moderate difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do
 down-and-dirty programming with pointers, manual memory management, etc. 
 in it,
 but you don't *have to* unless the nature of your problem domain would 
 require it
 no matter what the language.


 Or if you're absolutely obsessed with microperformance and attempt to
 subvert the GC at every possible opportunity.

 (Consider who you're replying to ;) )


 It seems that bearophile basically wants a GP / systems language and tools 
 that are nearly as productive as the likes of Python but can also produce 
 blazingly fast code. A pretty worthy goal, and I think that was the 
 orginal blanket idea behind D anyway. To win mindshare I think D has to be 
 able to do better than more established languages in both areas.

 Look at the time and $$$ spent on making Java "fast". Not a trivial 
 subject.

 Besides, there has been in previous years a good deal of initial interest 
 from members of two important groups where performance is vital: numeric 
 and game software developers. Over the years and more often than not it 
 seems, various members of both groups drop in to the NG's but end-up 
 showing only a fleeting interest in D. Most of the reason I think is 
 because performance isn't stellar, and even more that D (the language, as 
 specified) doesn't offer any advantage in that regard over the tried and 
 true like Fortran and C/++.


I think you need to "compile" a longer list of categories of 
development/developers. D is as old as C++ ("virtually"). Time has changed 
things. WB told me he finds GC compelling. I do not. Call me immature if you 
want to, but I have specific requirements, and GC doesn't fit into those. 
(Damn, this GC thing comes up soooo much, not only in D rooms, but 
certainly, this is where one would expect it to be thrashed out).


 I don't think D will succeed without healthy backing from at least one of 
 those groups. After all, if you're developing a "high-performance" 
 language, customers of organizations who sell Fortran compilers, math and 
 physics libraries and HPC hardware are pretty desirable to have on your 
 side..


Is D a solution looking for a problem?

Tony
Nov 22 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to dsimcha,


 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article
 

 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and
 all that),
 


 so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)
 

 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


 Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it
 has garbage collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would
 have guessed that most people only consider it to be of moderate
 difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do down-and-dirty programming with
 pointers, manual memory management, etc. in it, but you don't *have
 to* unless the nature of your problem domain would require it no
 matter what the language.
 


Compared to C or C++ it's down right easy, but that's kind of like saying 
climbing K2 is easy compared to going to the moon. (I wonder what more cash 
has been spent on, the Apollo project or C++ IDEs?)
Nov 20 2008
parent "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
"BCS" <ao pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:78ccfa2d35a6d8cb19421c2c1a78 news.digitalmars.com...

 Reply to dsimcha,


 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article


 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and
 all that),


 so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)


 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


 Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it
 has garbage collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would
 have guessed that most people only consider it to be of moderate
 difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do down-and-dirty programming with
 pointers, manual memory management, etc. in it, but you don't *have
 to* unless the nature of your problem domain would require it no
 matter what the language.


 Compared to C or C++ it's down right easy,


That begs the question: Is it viable if no one will underwrite it?

Tony
Nov 22 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
dsimcha wrote:

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and all
that),


 so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)

 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


 
 Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it has
garbage
 collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would have guessed that most
 people only consider it to be of moderate difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do
 down-and-dirty programming with pointers, manual memory management, etc. in it,
 but you don't *have to* unless the nature of your problem domain would require
it
 no matter what the language.


It's a systems language, it has to be difficult. I need a virtual 
machine with a billion dollars behind it to feel safe.

On a more serious note, the standard library and available IDEs often 
have more to do with ease of use of a language than the language itself 
(assuming the language is reasonable).
Nov 20 2008
parent reply Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:

 On a more serious note, the standard library and available IDEs often 
 have more to do with ease of use of a language than the language itself 
 (assuming the language is reasonable).


I disagree. I still find D _much_ easier than C++ even though C++ has 
tons of "standard" libraries and at least one passable IDE 
(SourceInsight; don't get me started on VS). Similarly, I would argue 
Ruby is easier than Perl, even though the latter has better 
libraries/development environments. Oh, and ML vs Scheme... yeah, I 
think the language has a lot to do with it.
Nov 20 2008
parent reply "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
"Robert Fraser" <fraserofthenight gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gg5bfo$20n5$1 digitalmars.com...

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 On a more serious note, the standard library and available IDEs often 
 have more to do with ease of use of a language than the language itself 
 (assuming the language is reasonable).


 I disagree. I still find D _much_ easier than C++ even though C++ has tons 
 of "standard" libraries and at least one passable IDE (SourceInsight; 
 don't get me started on VS).


On IDEs:

I like VS a lot: I was using and developing my own IDE system (makefile 
based with outlining text editing... never got to syntax highlighting but 
had the hooks) until the new version of VS came along. I find it VERY 
productive AFTER setting the environment up to AVOID MS technologies such as 
.net. I am using VS Pro (trial) and Express. I used to be a Borland fan, but 
one key IDE issue made me drop them.  That said, I can envision a much 
better IDE, but it is more than adequate right now for me. I am still doing 
much architectural rearrangement/rework/design though, so I don't know what 
other peoples' style is.


On libraries:

I am replacing (lots done already) the C++ std library. It's icky.

Tony.
Nov 22 2008
parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Tony wrote:

 On libraries:
 I am replacing (lots done already) the C++ std library. It's icky.


You must be a bored masochist.
Nov 23 2008
parent "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
"Christopher Wright" <dhasenan gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ggbpam$e5c$2 digitalmars.com...

 Tony wrote:

 On libraries:
 I am replacing (lots done already) the C++ std library. It's icky.


 You must be a bored masochist.


 Contraire: C++'s std library is of masochistic bent. (Surely no one sane or 
not abusive would do that!).

Tony
Nov 24 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
"dsimcha" <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:gg4tbk$ne9$1 digitalmars.com...

 == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and all 
 that),


 so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)

 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
 Bear hugs,
 bearophile


 Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it has 
 garbage
 collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would have guessed that 
 most
 people only consider it to be of moderate difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do
 down-and-dirty programming with pointers, manual memory management, etc. 
 in it,
 but you don't *have to* unless the nature of your problem domain would 
 require it
 no matter what the language.


So I have heard: that one can drop the GC and program correctly (hehe). But 
if that's one's preferred style, that kinda means C++ is the tool of choice, 
huh? (Not to belabor the point though).

Tony
Nov 22 2008
parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Tony (tonytech08 gmail.com)'s article

 So I have heard: that one can drop the GC and program correctly (hehe). But
 if that's one's preferred style, that kinda means C++ is the tool of choice,
 huh? (Not to belabor the point though).
 Tony


Actually, there is an advantage to this.  GC makes language and library design a
lot more flexible, and C++'s opt-in design hinders this.  At the same time,
there
are some use cases for which garbage collection is slow, such as when a function
requires O(N) scratch space to perform a calculation on an object that can
reasonably be arbitrarily large.  In these cases, where objects are large and
lifecycles are trivial, it can be a worthwhile optimization to delete this
scratch
space manually, even though you simply let the GC manage the vast majority of
your
memory.
Nov 22 2008
prev sibling parent "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote in message 
news:gg4iuu$2soh$1 digitalmars.com...

 Jarrett Billingsley:

 Okay.  I guess if that works for you..


 D is a fringe language,


Which can be good or bad and says nothing?


 and it's not an easy one (system language and all that),


D is not easy (sayeth you). Sayeth you moreso: "system level languages", 
must be inherently difficult, complex, etc.


  so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)


:P That's adhominem. (Personally, boring people don't intrigue me much). :)


 Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)


"What an odd comparison. DEATH and taxes? Hmm."

Tony
Nov 22 2008
prev sibling parent "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.24.1227190464.22690.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Tony <tonytech08 gmail.com> wrote:

 (...lots of stuff...)


 I'm not actually going to reply to your post.  Not because I feel
 you've "beaten" me or something, but because, well, you're obviously
 unconvincable,


At least you admit that you had an agenda. Good for you man.


 and I don't feel like responding to each and every one
 of your seventy-four thousand comments.


Sometimes I feel cordial enough to address peoples' responses thoroughly 
(read: procrastination). It's fun, I like to think.


 You post a thread asking if
 people think D is the next "PASCAL"


And give the context, for me, that makes me ponder that. Don't miss that, it 
is the gist of the whole post!


  (it IS NOT all CAPS, by the way),


OK, Pascal it is. (But I'll bet there was at one time long ago, some attempt 
be some people to disambiguate the meaning that way).


 never really defining what you mean by that,


pffft! I write paragraphs of context and you can't tell where I was coming 
from? I guess "context-free" grammars are for you! ;)


 and then promptly
 disagree with most everything I say in my reply.


Admit it, THAT irks you. 1. I am honest. 2. I know what I want. (The side 
notes to 1 and 2 are that I can be facetious and that I don't know what is 
impossible).


   Okay.  I guess if
 that works for you..


I understand: if thinking will make your head explode, don't do that! 
(hehe).

Tony
Nov 22 2008
prev sibling parent Chad J <gamerchad __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> writes:
Tony wrote:

 "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.408.1226733543.3087.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 was designed originally as
 a learning language,


 
 Sounds wrought with peril "designed as a learning <>". Hopefully, ideas of 
 education have matured since those times.
 


Lol RESOLVE C++.

http://everything2.com/e2node/Resolve%2520C%252B%252B
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/sce/now/
Nov 20 2008
prev sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Tony (tonytech08 gmail.com)'s article

 Is D today's PASCAL?
 Tony


No.  D is not a bondage-and-discipline language.
Nov 15 2008
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
dsimcha wrote:

 == Quote from Tony (tonytech08 gmail.com)'s article

 Is D today's PASCAL?
 Tony


 
 No.  D is not a bondage-and-discipline language.


It's interesting that every successful implementation of Pascal had to 
add a lot of extensions and escapes to Pascal's overly restrictive 
semantics. Since every implementation did a different set, Pascal was 
balkanized into a slew of vendor-specific languages. There was no 
portability. The portability of C++ buried Pascal.
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Tim M" <a b.com> writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:22:24 +1300, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:


 == Quote from Tony (tonytech08 gmail.com)'s article

 Is D today's PASCAL?
 Tony


 No.  D is not a bondage-and-discipline language.



I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public  
properties. Get & Set for everything.
Nov 15 2008
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Tim M wrote:

 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public 
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


I never really understood the fear of that, either.
Nov 15 2008
next sibling parent reply Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Tim M wrote:

 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


 
 I never really understood the fear of that, either.


Getters/Setters makes up for lack of 'const'.  Can't change it if
there's no setters.  Also, setters are important for all of java's
reflection systems, especially the IoC systems such as spring.

Later,
Brad
Nov 15 2008
next sibling parent Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Brad Roberts escribió:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tim M wrote:

 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


 I never really understood the fear of that, either.


 
 Getters/Setters makes up for lack of 'const'.  Can't change it if
 there's no setters.  Also, setters are important for all of java's
 reflection systems, especially the IoC systems such as spring.


They also allow you to later change their implementation without the 
client having to recompile their classes. But doing it everywhere is too 
much. If I provide an interface to my system and don't allow client code 
to use "internal" classes that I don't expose, in those classes I allow 
myself to use public fields.


 
 Later,
 Brad
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Brad Roberts wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tim M wrote:

 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


 I never really understood the fear of that, either.


 
 Getters/Setters makes up for lack of 'const'.  Can't change it if
 there's no setters.  Also, setters are important for all of java's
 reflection systems, especially the IoC systems such as spring.


Yes, but I see people use it everywhere because "it's the right way to 
program."
Nov 15 2008
next sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 digitalmars.com)'s article

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tim M wrote:

 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


 I never really understood the fear of that, either.


 Getters/Setters makes up for lack of 'const'.  Can't change it if
 there's no setters.  Also, setters are important for all of java's
 reflection systems, especially the IoC systems such as spring.


 Yes, but I see people use it everywhere because "it's the right way to
 program."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling parent Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Brad Roberts wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tim M wrote:

 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


 I never really understood the fear of that, either.


 Getters/Setters makes up for lack of 'const'.  Can't change it if
 there's no setters.  Also, setters are important for all of java's
 reflection systems, especially the IoC systems such as spring.


 
 Yes, but I see people use it everywhere because "it's the right way to
 program."


Well, imho, constant (immutable) objects often are the right way to
program.  With that assumption, you can see that it's one way the
pattern might evolve. :)

Just one observation.  Obviously there's room for lots of opinions in
this space and I'm not a java developer.  I played with the language for
several months back in the 1.0 days, and a little bit of development for
the first time since then this past month -- not nearly enough to be
considered a java developer.  For that I'd have to pick up and adopt the
various idioms that are prevalent and drink more of the kool-aid.

Later,
Brad
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling parent "Tim M" <a b.com> writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:06:33 +1300, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com>  
wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tim M wrote:

 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


 I never really understood the fear of that, either.


 Getters/Setters makes up for lack of 'const'.  Can't change it if
 there's no setters.  Also, setters are important for all of java's
 reflection systems, especially the IoC systems such as spring.

 Later,
 Brad


Thats not what I mean. I meant a simple property that should have  
read/write access but has a get and set which do nothing extra. I never  
meant for this sort of thing to start. We could argue for years the  
advantages & disadvantages of get & set methods and still not come to a  
conclusion. It's just not worth it.
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling parent reply Janderson <ask me.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 Tim M wrote:

 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public 
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


 
 I never really understood the fear of that, either.


One problem is that once you make something public its difficult to make 
it private or move it to another class without impacting the client who 
uses the code.  Its difficult if you decide to Pimpl something for 
example.  D of course allows one to write their own Getter/Setters so 
that's a non issue.

Of course if your writing something like a simple struct (ie 
non-invariant) then your not likely to want to encapsulate it any way. 
It's a pity Java doesn't have a concept of struct.

-Joel
Nov 15 2008
parent Janderson <ask me.com> writes:
Janderson wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tim M wrote:

 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public 
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


 I never really understood the fear of that, either.


 
 D of course allows one to write their own Getter/Setters so 
 that's a non issue.
 -Joel


Of course I mean by that, that you can replace your own public data in D 
with functions without affecting the client.
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Tim M wrote:

 On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:22:24 +1300, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:
 

 == Quote from Tony (tonytech08 gmail.com)'s article

 Is D today's PASCAL?
 Tony


 No.  D is not a bondage-and-discipline language.


 
 
 I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public 
 properties. Get & Set for everything.


You can't have fields in an interface.

Fields can't be overridden, and you can't add validation to them. (In D, 
you can use invariants, but they won't tell you what set this field to a 
bad value.)

The only way to get this behavior in Java is with get/set methods.


using properties rather than fields everywhere, but I'm starting to 
think that's bad form. Unless you're using interfaces or doing 
validation, something interesting like that, just use a public field. In
Nov 15 2008
prev sibling parent "Tony" <tonytech08 gmail.com> writes:
"dsimcha" <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:gfmt00$1pih$1 digitalmars.com...

 == Quote from Tony (tonytech08 gmail.com)'s article

 Is D today's PASCAL?
 Tony


 No.  D is not a bondage-and-discipline language.


I'll accept all indications that choosing C at that "tender" time was the 
right choice.  ;) (Kidding: I am VERY practical).

Tony
Nov 19 2008