www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - "The Case for D" on Ycombinator

reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858
Oct 30 2009
parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:

 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858

It's an interesting discussion. From it it seems several persons would like a D V.1.5, something intermediate between D1 and D2. Bye, bearophile
Oct 31 2009
next sibling parent reply #ponce <aliloko gmail.com> writes:
 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858

Added mandatory C++ attacks and D fanboyism
Oct 31 2009
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
#ponce wrote:
 Walter Bright Wrote:

 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858

Added mandatory C++ attacks and D fanboyism

I read the exchange just now (nice job ponce) and am a bit surprised how much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I haven't used another language extensively for about three years. And how the heck is TDPL a filibuster for D? I think it's accelerating, not delaying, D adoption. Andrei
Oct 31 2009
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu:

 I read the exchange just now (nice job ponce) and am a bit surprised how 
 much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire 
 doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I 
 haven't used another language extensively for about three years.

Like everything else, templates too have some disadvantages and some advantages. For the purposes of D I think that using templates is often positive. Haskell, Java, C and C# show worse alternatives when you want to define typed collections. And some things in future may be improved a little to make D template usage a bit simpler or less visually cluttered. Introducing private/public names in templates is a possible positive step. Other ideas are possible, we have to think about them. (Time ago I have suggested a "type" type, to replace some functional-style template usage with simpler imperative-style compile time functions, but it was not appreciated. Maybe also because it introduces yet another way to do the same thing, despite it looks like a simpler way). Regarding Phobos2, some of its details may not be "battle tested", and some its APIs may not be the best yet, some names may not be the best chosen (for example some people think that "iota" is not the best name), but such bad details may be fixed in future if you and others are willing refine the code. I don't see basic things wrong in Phobos2. (There's only an interesting change I'd like to propose for Phobos2, I'll talk about it in another post. And it may be a bad/useless idea). Bye, bearophile
Oct 31 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
bearophile wrote:
 (Time ago I have
 suggested a "type" type, to replace some functional-style template
 usage with simpler imperative-style compile time functions, but it
 was not appreciated. Maybe also because it introduces yet another way
 to do the same thing, despite it looks like a simpler way).

Doing type manipulation in D templates can be a bit clunky, but: 1. it is far easier than in C++ 2. it is doable 3. the clunkiness is in the template body, not the usage of the template and at the moment we have more critical things that need to get done.
Oct 31 2009
prev sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:50:18 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 
 #ponce wrote:
 Walter Bright Wrote:

 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858


much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I haven't used another language extensively for about three years. And how the heck is TDPL a filibuster for D? I think it's accelerating, not delaying, D adoption. Andrei

Because tdpl is (perceived to be?) delayed, D2 finalization is delayed. But unless D2 is stable, Tango won't switch to D2 and the Tango vs. Phobos won't get (at least) compatible. LDC might as well switch to D2. Not that this is entirely correct, but I think tdpl is perceived as filibuster for these reasons. As far as I can tell, library and language incompatibilities (Tango/ Phobos, D1/D2) are a big problem. Mostly for newcomers to D. Those who have settled with a combination may feel more comfortable, but still.

I understand. Well, what I can do is to keep on working! Page 317 and counting. Andrei
Oct 31 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:50:18 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 #ponce wrote:
 Walter Bright Wrote:

 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858

Added mandatory C++ attacks and D fanboyism

I read the exchange just now (nice job ponce) and am a bit surprised how much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I haven't used another language extensively for about three years. And how the heck is TDPL a filibuster for D? I think it's accelerating, not delaying, D adoption. Andrei

Because tdpl is (perceived to be?) delayed, D2 finalization is delayed. But unless D2 is stable, Tango won't switch to D2 and the Tango vs. Phobos won't get (at least) compatible. LDC might as well switch to D2. Not that this is entirely correct, but I think tdpl is perceived as filibuster for these reasons. As far as I can tell, library and language incompatibilities (Tango/ Phobos, D1/D2) are a big problem. Mostly for newcomers to D. Those who have settled with a combination may feel more comfortable, but still.
Oct 31 2009
prev sibling parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:06:15 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Moritz Warning wrote:
 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:50:18 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 
 #ponce wrote:
 Walter Bright Wrote:

 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858


how much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I haven't used another language extensively for about three years. And how the heck is TDPL a filibuster for D? I think it's accelerating, not delaying, D adoption. Andrei

Because tdpl is (perceived to be?) delayed, D2 finalization is delayed. But unless D2 is stable, Tango won't switch to D2 and the Tango vs. Phobos won't get (at least) compatible. LDC might as well switch to D2. Not that this is entirely correct, but I think tdpl is perceived as filibuster for these reasons. As far as I can tell, library and language incompatibilities (Tango/ Phobos, D1/D2) are a big problem. Mostly for newcomers to D. Those who have settled with a combination may feel more comfortable, but still.

I understand. Well, what I can do is to keep on working! Page 317 and counting. Andrei

True. Keep up your good work. Take your breaks. Have fun. :) )
Oct 31 2009