• Michal (3/3) Oct 15 2007 Hi,
• Frits van Bommel (6/8) Oct 15 2007 Pointer arithmetic works, but (obviously) only when you're actually
• Kyle Furlong (3/13) Oct 15 2007 That being said, D can be used as a better C. (no preprocessor, modules,...
• Alexander Panek (3/5) Oct 15 2007 Definitely!
• Kyle Furlong (6/12) Oct 15 2007 I guess to elaborate on this, since people might find it interesting,
• Jarrett Billingsley (8/20) Oct 15 2007 Some friends and I are doing just that right now. We're using GDC and i...

Michal <mlliso wp.pl> writes:

Hi, 
Im new to D language, and Im wondering if there is pointer arithmetic. I think
its very useful thing, sometimes more convenient than [].

Thx for reply.

Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:

Michal wrote:
 Hi, 
 Im new to D language, and Im wondering if there is pointer arithmetic. I think
its very useful thing, sometimes more convenient than [].

Pointer arithmetic works, but (obviously) only when you're actually 
using pointers.
However between class references, real array types and ref (aka 
inout)/out parameters, raw pointer usage in D programs is typically very 
low (and is normally discouraged unless there's no other way).

Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:

Frits van Bommel wrote:
 Michal wrote:
 Hi, Im new to D language, and Im wondering if there is pointer 
 arithmetic. I think its very useful thing, sometimes more convenient 
 than [].

 
 Pointer arithmetic works, but (obviously) only when you're actually 
 using pointers.
 However between class references, real array types and ref (aka 
 inout)/out parameters, raw pointer usage in D programs is typically very 
 low (and is normally discouraged unless there's no other way).

That being said, D can be used as a better C. (no preprocessor, modules, 
etc.)

Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:

Kyle Furlong wrote:
 That being said, D can be used as a better C. (no preprocessor, modules, 
 etc.)

Definitely!
/me puts some emphasis marks around that post

Kyle Furlong <kylefurlong gmail.com> writes:

Alexander Panek wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 That being said, D can be used as a better C. (no preprocessor, 
 modules, etc.)

 
 Definitely!
 /me puts some emphasis marks around that post

I guess to elaborate on this, since people might find it interesting, 
for x86 at least, D is a wonderful choice for OS design. I've worked 
with D in a couple of kernel programming cases, and while you dont have 
all the bells and whistles of the runtime with the GC and all of that, 
what you do get is a more sane, manageable C-like language.

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ff0qrg$16fk$1 digitalmars.com...
 Alexander Panek wrote:
 Kyle Furlong wrote:
 That being said, D can be used as a better C. (no preprocessor, modules, 
 etc.)

 Definitely!
 /me puts some emphasis marks around that post

 I guess to elaborate on this, since people might find it interesting, for 
 x86 at least, D is a wonderful choice for OS design. I've worked with D in 
 a couple of kernel programming cases, and while you dont have all the 
 bells and whistles of the runtime with the GC and all of that, what you do 
 get is a more sane, manageable C-like language.

Some friends and I are doing just that right now.  We're using GDC and its 
extended ASM syntax to write an x86-64 exokernel OS.  It's certainly a lot 
nicer to deal with than vanilla C, and with some of the basic runtime 
elements defined / stubbed out, you don't miss some of the more dynamic 
features that much.  (We haven't gotten dynamic memory or even virtual 
memory implemented yet ;) )