www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [article] Language Design Deal Breakers

reply =?UTF-8?Q?Klaim_=2D_Jo=C3=ABl_Lamotte?= <mjklaim gmail.com> writes:
--089e013c6a70f9b46704dd92bd03
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I think this have not been posted yet around here but might be interesting
to the D community as it is actually criticizing several languages
including D but with an interesting aproach:

http://sebastiansylvan.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/language-design-deal-breakers/

Joel Lamotte

--089e013c6a70f9b46704dd92bd03
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I think this have not been posted yet around here but migh=
t be interesting to the D community as it is actually criticizing several l=
anguages including D but with an interesting aproach:<div><br></div><div><a=
 href=3D"http://sebastiansylvan.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/language-design-de=
al-breakers/">http://sebastiansylvan.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/language-desi=
gn-deal-breakers/</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Joel Lamotte</div><div><br></div></div>

--089e013c6a70f9b46704dd92bd03--
May 25 2013
next sibling parent reply Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:50:28 +0200
Klaim - Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte <mjklaim gmail.com> wrote:
 I think this have not been posted yet around here but might be
 interesting to the D community as it is actually criticizing several
 languages including D but with an interesting aproach:
=20
 http://sebastiansylvan.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/language-design-deal-brea=

=20

Hah, now that's my kind of dude: "I know you=E2=80=99re supposed to be diplomatic and claim that there=E2=80= =99s two sides to this story, and no real right answer, but really people who think dynamic typing is suitable for large scale software development are just nuts. They=E2=80=99ll claim it=E2=80=99s more flexible and general= but that=E2=80=99s just nonsense in my opinion." Classic :) It's weird when I see my thoughts written by someone else (and worded better that I would have), but he nailed it there. I do think his "inertia" with C++ is cranked way into overdrive, though. Forget waiting for a huge improvement, I'd have been happy to ditch C++ even for a small improvement. C++ is such a pain IMO that using it has about as much inertia as ice skates on concrete. Still though, great article. He has another great bit in a different article that one links to: "I think writing high performance games in Java or C# is kinda crazy, and the current trend of writing apps in HTML5 and JavaScript and then running it on top of some browser-like environment is positively bonkers. The proliferation of abstraction layers and general =E2=80=9Ccruft= =E2=80=9D is a huge pet peeve of mine =E2=80=93 I don=E2=80=99t understand why it takes = 30 seconds to launch a glorified text editor (like most IDEs =E2=80=93 Eclipse, Visual Studio, etc.), when it took a fraction of a second twenty years ago on hardware that was thousands of times slower." - http://sebastiansylvan.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/on-gc-in-games-response-to-= jeff-and-casey/ That said, even though I've never been enthusiastic about C# as "high performance games" langauge, I *do* definitely understand the game industry's increasing usage of it considering that aside from D (which still isn't quite ready-to-use on most gaming platforms) their only other real alternative is C++.
May 25 2013
next sibling parent reply "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 01:27:55PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
 On 26/05/13 11:59, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

Forget waiting for a huge improvement, I'd have been happy to
ditch C++ even for a small improvement. C++ is such a pain IMO that
using it has about as much inertia as ice skates on concrete.

I found shifting from C++ to C an improvement. (Yes, I learnt C++ before I learnt C.) I should mention that this was back in the mid 90s and C++ may have improved since then :-).

You're not the only one who felt that way. At my day job we also "upgraded" from C++ back to C. I've often ranted about our horrific experience with a hugely over-engineered C++ system that can literally do *anything*... except that nobody understood how to use the thing. It had dtors with side-effects that did useful work, for instance, and there were so many levels of abstraction it was bordering on insanity. Once I had to make a function call to said horrible code... it involved going through 6 layers of abstraction, two of which were fwrite()ing function arguments to a temporary file, then fork() and exec()ing an auxilliary utility that fread() the arguments back, and *then* dispatched them across an IPC link... We're now back in C-land, and boy the code is much cleaner, and *faster*, even though it's a lot harder to read and more tedious to maintain. Like I've said many times before, the only way I found coding in C++ tolerable was to use it as "C with classes". Trying to do real OO in C++ is an exercise in masochism. Even Java with its baroque verbosity and prolific boilerplates beats C++ hands-down in this respect. And don't even mention templates, which are already nasty enough to work with in simple generic types; they are utter monstrosities when you start getting into CTFE and compile-time codegen. D templates, CTFE, and mixins, by contrast, are actually *pleasant* to work with. T -- Computers shouldn't beep through the keyhole.
May 25 2013
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 26.05.2013 11:28, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
 On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:44:52 -0700
 "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
 Like I've said many times before, the only way I found coding in C++
 tolerable was to use it as "C with classes". Trying to do real OO in
 C++ is an exercise in masochism. Even Java with its baroque verbosity
 and prolific boilerplates beats C++ hands-down in this respect.

I always used to consider myself comfortable with C/C++ until I came across Java. To mix metaphors, that was a double-edged eye-opener: Java (this was circa v1.2-v1.4) taught me everything that was wrong with C++'s classes and *cough* module system, but it *also* taught me that Java wasn't the answer either. ;)

For me the deal break was that it worked more or less the same everywhere, while keeping a C++ feeling. Plus it had a module system reminiscent of Pascal family of languages, and back then I was already impressed with GC enabled systems programming languages thanks to Native Oberon operating system. Did you had the pleasure to write portable C or C++ code across multiple operating systems and vendors in the mid 90's? Welcome to #ifdef spaghetti code and reluctance of using certain features due to inconsistent support. -- Paulo
May 26 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/26/2013 7:48 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 Ah, if only this code were written in D... :-P

One possibility is to write the code in D, debug it, then recode the result in C to satisfy your customer. (Don't dismiss this out of hand - I've seen this sort of thing done before. Back when I was programming hand-held LED games for Mattel (remember those?) the prototype was written for a 6502 single board computer that fit in a Samsonite briefcase. Once the gameplay and everything else was massaged to perfection, it was handed over to another group of engineers who translated it to work on the 4 bit computer that drove the actual handheld device.)
May 26 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/26/2013 12:56 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:51:24 -0700
 Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 On 5/26/2013 7:48 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 Ah, if only this code were written in D... :-P

One possibility is to write the code in D, debug it, then recode the result in C to satisfy your customer. (Don't dismiss this out of hand - I've seen this sort of thing done before. Back when I was programming hand-held LED games for Mattel (remember those?)

You worked on those? That's really cool, my friends and I used to love those things (Or, actually, come to think of it, at that point they were all LCD, not LED - roughly late 80's IIRC). Most of the ones I had were "Tiger" brand though - was that part of Mattel or a competitor?

Yeah, I did the 'Soccer' one. For minimum wage! It was in 1978 or so. The display was a grid of red LEDs.
May 26 2013
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/26/2013 1:21 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Cool. I did a couple of indie/budget games back in late high school,
 early college (roughly 1998-2002) for royalties that probably ended up
 working out to much less than minimum wage. But it still beat the hell
 out of McDonald's! ;)

That's true. I learned a hell of a lot - best min wage job I ever had! I did a whole bunch of embedded systems then, and they were real projects for real customers, not demonstration projects. The company I was working for, Aph, could have been Microsoft. But they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and disappeared. Management simply had no idea what they had. (Of course, I had no idea at the time, either.)
May 26 2013
prev sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:
On 05/26/2013 01:04 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Yeah, I did the 'Soccer' one.

http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Mattel/Soccer.htm That's before my time. :) I have played with ones similar to this though: http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Nintendo/Octopus.htm Ali
May 26 2013
parent Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 27.05.2013 09:13, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
 On Mon, 27 May 2013 08:22:02 +0200
 "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:

 On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 01:29:12 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:20:59PM -0700, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 On 05/26/2013 01:04 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Yeah, I did the 'Soccer' one.

http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Mattel/Soccer.htm That's before my time. :) I have played with ones similar to this though: http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Nintendo/Octopus.htm

Whoa. This one brings back the memories! Was this the one where you had to evade the tentacles and get to the sunken ship and back? I must've been a primary schoolboy when I played this game (never owned it though -- I used to visit my grand-uncle's electronics store and played it there). T

Oh man! My first handheld, http://www.gameandwatch.com/screen/widescreen/manhole/index.html

These were my first: http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Tiger/Pinball.htm http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Tiger/ElectronicFootball.htm http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Tiger/DoubleDragon.htm http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Tiger/NinjaGaiden.htm (I like this thread, it makes me feel comparatively young ;) ) I played the heck out of those pinball and football ones. Strange though, I had totally forgotten about those two until browsing that site just now. I also had the Castlevania II, MegaMan 2, and some racing one from a different company, not sure who. No idea what happened to any of them. (The watch one I remember I lost a loooong time ago.) Many years later I participated in a very fun little "Make an LCD-handheld style game" homebrew competition with a GBA entry (got third place): http://pdroms.de/files/gameboyadvance/my-robot-v1-0

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
May 27 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 26.05.2013 05:27, schrieb Peter Williams:
 On 26/05/13 11:59, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Forget waiting for a huge improvement, I'd have been happy to
 ditch C++ even for a small improvement. C++ is such a pain IMO that
 using it has about as much inertia as ice skates on concrete.

I found shifting from C++ to C an improvement. (Yes, I learnt C++ before I learnt C.) I should mention that this was back in the mid 90s and C++ may have improved since then :-). Peter

After being a Turbo Pascal heavy user, C always felt backwards to me with its weak types, lack of proper strings, modules and namespaces. Even with its warts C++ offers a more cosy environment in terms of strong typing, modularity and abstractions to use, at least to me. I am a strong supporter of Microsoft's decision to dump C from their tooling. Only with such actions can a system programming language be eventually replaced. -- Paulo
May 26 2013
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 5/26/2013 12:03 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 After being a Turbo Pascal heavy user, C always felt backwards to me with its
 weak types, lack of proper strings, modules and namespaces.

I had the opposite experience. Being a Pascal user from the late 70's, I hated Pascal's limitations. A friend loaned me K+R and it was like someone opened a window. I never wrote another line of Pascal; I threw it under the bus, and couldn't work up any interest in TP (which came along later). Proper strings? Those length-prefixed ones that couldn't be longer than 255 characters? Argh. C botched them too with 0 terminated ones, but at least they were usable.
May 26 2013
parent reply Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
Am 26.05.2013 09:36, schrieb Walter Bright:
 On 5/26/2013 12:03 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 After being a Turbo Pascal heavy user, C always felt backwards to me
 with its
 weak types, lack of proper strings, modules and namespaces.

I had the opposite experience. Being a Pascal user from the late 70's, I hated Pascal's limitations. A friend loaned me K+R and it was like someone opened a window. I never wrote another line of Pascal; I threw it under the bus, and couldn't work up any interest in TP (which came along later). Proper strings? Those length-prefixed ones that couldn't be longer than 255 characters? Argh. C botched them too with 0 terminated ones, but at least they were usable.

Pascal string limitations were only an issue in classic Pascal, both Extend Pascal its sucessors Modula-2 and so on follow a model similar to what D offers. Now it is too late for it, but at the time C could have stayed as powerful as it is while offering: - proper modules, or at least namespaces - no automatic conversions between arrays and pointers. how hard it is to write &a[0]? - arguments by reference, no need to check for null for every parameter - strong typed enumerations - memory allocation without requiring the developer to use sizeof everywhere - strings similar to what D has - proper arrays, after all the compilers for other languages always offered control over when bound checking code was generated In the end, same syntax, just some semantic improvements on the type system. But now it is too late, we only have modern C++ with its warts, or hopefully D, Rust, Go, C#, or something else as possible replacement. However, given that C and UNIX are one and only, it will outlive us all. -- Paulo
May 26 2013
parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:18:11 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
 Back then there was a lot of pressure to minimalize the
 language; nowadays we know better...

No we don't. Some of us do, like those of us here in D-land. But from what I've seen there's still a *lot* of belief in keeping languages minimal.
 
 On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:22:18AM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 
 I dunno. The more I learned about C++'s more advances features the
 more disillusioned I became with it. I was always happiest (or at
 least, least unhappy) with the "C with classes" form of C++.

Have to agree with that. Though when templates first came out, they were a huge thing for me. It was only later that it became clear that the way C++ handled them was ... well, it left a lot to be desired. :) When I got acquianted with D's templates, I was totally blown away. It was like a veil was lifted and I saw for the first time what a *real* template system ought to look like.

I always tended to avoid doing much of anything with C++ templates simply because they were still new at the time and the implementations were considered to still be somewhat buggy. Around the same time, I was noticing that using any of the newer, fancier, "better" features of C++ had a tendency to leave you needing to *also* start using all of the other fancier features, too, many of which were either awkward (being C++ and all) or known-buggy (the templates at the time). So that was a big part of what made me start loosing interest in C++.
 C++11 (finally!) introduced lambdas
 and type inference, and a bunch of other stuff, but ... meh. A lot of
 it feels like "too little, too late".
 

Yea. I generally feel that, regardless of whether or not those involved are consciously thinking it, C++ is basically a rusty run-down old engine on two working cylinders that's...not trying to catch up with D, but just trying it's best not to fall too far behind, too quickly.
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:44:52 -0700
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
 
 Like I've said many times before, the only way I found coding in C++
 tolerable was to use it as "C with classes". Trying to do real OO in
 C++ is an exercise in masochism. Even Java with its baroque verbosity
 and prolific boilerplates beats C++ hands-down in this respect. 
 

I always used to consider myself comfortable with C/C++ until I came across Java. To mix metaphors, that was a double-edged eye-opener: Java (this was circa v1.2-v1.4) taught me everything that was wrong with C++'s classes and *cough* module system, but it *also* taught me that Java wasn't the answer either. ;)
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 01:18:32PM +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[...]
 Did you had the pleasure to write portable C or C++ code across
 multiple operating systems and vendors in the mid 90's?
 
 Welcome to #ifdef spaghetti code and reluctance of using certain
 features due to inconsistent support.

Ugh! Don't remind me. Right now at work I have a project that requires reading (yes, just reading) some heavily #ifdef'd code. It's a very, very, very painful experience. Not to mention function pointer spaghetti. One of the symptoms of switching from C++ back to C is that there's no polymorphic abstraction anymore, so the only way to have a sane polymorphic system is to use tables of function pointers everywhere. When a bug happens in some obscure corner of the code, it's hours and hours of hair-pulling to discover just which of 50 different function pointer initializations were in effect when the bug happened, for each of the 50 function pointers traversed before the buggy code. It's gotten to the point that every other line of code is a call through a function pointer, each of which has its own set of 50 or so different functions that it can potentially point to. It doesn't help that many of these function pointers are unhelpfully named. I'm quite near the point of losing my sanity just trying to figure out the control flow of the thing! Ah, if only this code were written in D... :-P T -- What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:18:32 +0200
Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:
 
 Did you had the pleasure to write portable C or C++ code across
 multiple operating systems and vendors in the mid 90's?
 

Luckily, no. For me it was just Win9x and DOS (using that awesome 32-bit extender DOOM and every other game of the time used, forget the name. DOS4GW?). And it was more mid-to-late 90's for me. (And then a little bit of PalmOS around 2000 or so.)
 Welcome to #ifdef spaghetti code and reluctance of using certain 
 features due to inconsistent support.
 

May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:51:24 -0700
Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 On 5/26/2013 7:48 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 Ah, if only this code were written in D... :-P

One possibility is to write the code in D, debug it, then recode the result in C to satisfy your customer. (Don't dismiss this out of hand - I've seen this sort of thing done before. Back when I was programming hand-held LED games for Mattel (remember those?)

You worked on those? That's really cool, my friends and I used to love those things (Or, actually, come to think of it, at that point they were all LCD, not LED - roughly late 80's IIRC). Most of the ones I had were "Tiger" brand though - was that part of Mattel or a competitor?
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:04:50 -0700
Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 On 5/26/2013 12:56 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:51:24 -0700
 Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:
 (Don't dismiss this out of hand - I've seen this sort of thing done
 before. Back when I was programming hand-held LED games for Mattel
 (remember those?)

You worked on those? That's really cool, my friends and I used to love those things (Or, actually, come to think of it, at that point they were all LCD, not LED - roughly late 80's IIRC). Most of the ones I had were "Tiger" brand though - was that part of Mattel or a competitor?

Yeah, I did the 'Soccer' one. For minimum wage! It was in 1978 or so. The display was a grid of red LEDs.

Cool. I did a couple of indie/budget games back in late high school, early college (roughly 1998-2002) for royalties that probably ended up working out to much less than minimum wage. But it still beat the hell out of McDonald's! ;)
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Peter Williams <pwil3058 bigpond.net.au> writes:
On 26/05/13 15:44, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 01:27:55PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
 On 26/05/13 11:59, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Forget waiting for a huge improvement, I'd have been happy to
 ditch C++ even for a small improvement. C++ is such a pain IMO that
 using it has about as much inertia as ice skates on concrete.

I found shifting from C++ to C an improvement. (Yes, I learnt C++ before I learnt C.) I should mention that this was back in the mid 90s and C++ may have improved since then :-).

You're not the only one who felt that way. At my day job we also "upgraded" from C++ back to C. I've often ranted about our horrific experience with a hugely over-engineered C++ system that can literally do *anything*... except that nobody understood how to use the thing. It had dtors with side-effects that did useful work, for instance, and there were so many levels of abstraction it was bordering on insanity. Once I had to make a function call to said horrible code... it involved going through 6 layers of abstraction, two of which were fwrite()ing function arguments to a temporary file, then fork() and exec()ing an auxilliary utility that fread() the arguments back, and *then* dispatched them across an IPC link...

Makes debugging fun doesn't it? :-)
 We're now back in C-land, and boy the code is much cleaner, and
 *faster*, even though it's a lot harder to read and more tedious to
 maintain.

 Like I've said many times before, the only way I found coding in C++
 tolerable was to use it as "C with classes". Trying to do real OO in C++
 is an exercise in masochism. Even Java with its baroque verbosity and

Amen to that. One reason I've avoided Java is that I found the signal to noise ratio in the source code VERY low and this made reading such code to find the bit that actually did something difficult. I am (or was), however, a fan of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) because it offers "run anywhere" functionality.
 prolific boilerplates beats C++ hands-down in this respect. And don't
 even mention templates, which are already nasty enough to work with in
 simple generic types; they are utter monstrosities when you start
 getting into CTFE and compile-time codegen. D templates, CTFE, and
 mixins, by contrast, are actually *pleasant* to work with.

I agree. Although I'm still learning D I'm finding it a pleasure with a very high signal to noise ratio in source code. Plus most features just work like one wishes the would. Peter
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:20:59PM -0700, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 On 05/26/2013 01:04 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 
Yeah, I did the 'Soccer' one.

http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Mattel/Soccer.htm That's before my time. :) I have played with ones similar to this though: http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Nintendo/Octopus.htm

Whoa. This one brings back the memories! Was this the one where you had to evade the tentacles and get to the sunken ship and back? I must've been a primary schoolboy when I played this game (never owned it though -- I used to visit my grand-uncle's electronics store and played it there). T -- When solving a problem, take care that you do not become part of the problem.
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 01:29:12 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:20:59PM -0700, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 On 05/26/2013 01:04 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 
Yeah, I did the 'Soccer' one.

http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Mattel/Soccer.htm That's before my time. :) I have played with ones similar to this though: http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Nintendo/Octopus.htm

Whoa. This one brings back the memories! Was this the one where you had to evade the tentacles and get to the sunken ship and back? I must've been a primary schoolboy when I played this game (never owned it though -- I used to visit my grand-uncle's electronics store and played it there). T

Oh man! My first handheld, http://www.gameandwatch.com/screen/widescreen/manhole/index.html
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> writes:
On Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 19:49:44 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:18:32 +0200
 Paulo Pinto <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:
 
 Did you had the pleasure to write portable C or C++ code across
 multiple operating systems and vendors in the mid 90's?
 

Luckily, no. For me it was just Win9x and DOS (using that awesome 32-bit extender DOOM and every other game of the time used, forget the name. DOS4GW?). And it was more mid-to-late 90's for me. (And then a little bit of PalmOS around 2000 or so.)
 Welcome to #ifdef spaghetti code and reluctance of using 
 certain features due to inconsistent support.


Back in 2000-2001 I was responsible for making a C codebase work across HP-UX, Solaris, Aix, Linux and Windows NT/2000, while using the OS vendors C compilers. Lots of fun with C standard compliance, this is where my #ifdef spaghetti code experience comes from. And the last time I really used C at work, before I moved definitely into C++/JVM/.NET land. When I left the company in 2003, they were starting the transition to .NET, by that time I was already writing C# code with C++/CLI bindings to the "legacy" stuff. -- Paulo
May 26 2013
prev sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Mon, 27 May 2013 08:22:02 +0200
"Paulo Pinto" <pjmlp progtools.org> wrote:

 On Monday, 27 May 2013 at 01:29:12 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:20:59PM -0700, Ali =C7ehreli wrote:
 On 05/26/2013 01:04 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
=20
Yeah, I did the 'Soccer' one.

http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Mattel/Soccer.htm =20 That's before my time. :) I have played with ones similar to=20 this though: =20 http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Nintendo/Octopus.htm

Whoa. This one brings back the memories! Was this the one where=20 you had to evade the tentacles and get to the sunken ship and back? I=20 must've been a primary schoolboy when I played this game (never owned=20 it though -- I used to visit my grand-uncle's electronics store and=20 played it there). T

Oh man! My first handheld, =20 http://www.gameandwatch.com/screen/widescreen/manhole/index.html =20

These were my first: http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Tiger/Pinball.htm http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Tiger/ElectronicFootball.htm http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Tiger/DoubleDragon.htm http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Tiger/NinjaGaiden.htm (I like this thread, it makes me feel comparatively young ;) ) I played the heck out of those pinball and football ones. Strange though, I had totally forgotten about those two until browsing that site just now. I also had the Castlevania II, MegaMan 2, and some racing one from a different company, not sure who. No idea what happened to any of them. (The watch one I remember I lost a loooong time ago.) Many years later I participated in a very fun little "Make an LCD-handheld style game" homebrew competition with a GBA entry (got third place): http://pdroms.de/files/gameboyadvance/my-robot-v1-0
May 27 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Peter Williams <pwil3058 bigpond.net.au> writes:
On 26/05/13 11:59, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On Sun, 26 May 2013 00:50:28 +0200
 Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim gmail.com> wrote:
 I think this have not been posted yet around here but might be
 interesting to the D community as it is actually criticizing several
 languages including D but with an interesting aproach:

 http://sebastiansylvan.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/language-design-deal-breakers/

Hah, now that's my kind of dude: "I know you’re supposed to be diplomatic and claim that there’s two sides to this story, and no real right answer, but really people who think dynamic typing is suitable for large scale software development are just nuts. They’ll claim it’s more flexible and general but that’s just nonsense in my opinion." Classic :) It's weird when I see my thoughts written by someone else (and worded better that I would have), but he nailed it there. I do think his "inertia" with C++ is cranked way into overdrive, though.

Yes.
 Forget waiting for a huge improvement, I'd have been happy to
 ditch C++ even for a small improvement. C++ is such a pain IMO that
 using it has about as much inertia as ice skates on concrete.

I found shifting from C++ to C an improvement. (Yes, I learnt C++ before I learnt C.) I should mention that this was back in the mid 90s and C++ may have improved since then :-). Peter
May 25 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 25 May 2013 at 23:21:59 UTC, Klaim - Joël Lamotte 
wrote:
 I think this have not been posted yet around here but might be 
 interesting
 to the D community as it is actually criticizing several 
 languages
 including D but with an interesting aproach:

 http://sebastiansylvan.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/language-design-deal-breakers/

 Joel Lamotte

I agree on every single point.
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 May 2013 13:27:55 +1000
Peter Williams <pwil3058 bigpond.net.au> wrote:
 
 I should mention that this was back in the mid
 90s and C++ may have improved since then :-).
 

I dunno. The more I learned about C++'s more advances features the more disillusioned I became with it. I was always happiest (or at least, least unhappy) with the "C with classes" form of C++. But then again, maybe that has nothing to do with "older C++ vs newer C++"?
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent Peter Williams <pwil3058 bigpond.net.au> writes:
On 26/05/13 21:13, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 Am 26.05.2013 09:36, schrieb Walter Bright:
 On 5/26/2013 12:03 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
 After being a Turbo Pascal heavy user, C always felt backwards to me
 with its
 weak types, lack of proper strings, modules and namespaces.

I had the opposite experience. Being a Pascal user from the late 70's, I hated Pascal's limitations. A friend loaned me K+R and it was like someone opened a window. I never wrote another line of Pascal; I threw it under the bus, and couldn't work up any interest in TP (which came along later). Proper strings? Those length-prefixed ones that couldn't be longer than 255 characters? Argh. C botched them too with 0 terminated ones, but at least they were usable.

Pascal string limitations were only an issue in classic Pascal, both Extend Pascal its sucessors Modula-2 and so on follow a model similar to what D offers. Now it is too late for it, but at the time C could have stayed as powerful as it is while offering: - proper modules, or at least namespaces - no automatic conversions between arrays and pointers. how hard it is to write &a[0]? - arguments by reference, no need to check for null for every parameter - strong typed enumerations - memory allocation without requiring the developer to use sizeof everywhere - strings similar to what D has - proper arrays, after all the compilers for other languages always offered control over when bound checking code was generated In the end, same syntax, just some semantic improvements on the type system. But now it is too late, we only have modern C++ with its warts, or hopefully D, Rust, Go, C#, or something else as possible replacement. However, given that C and UNIX are one and only, it will outlive us all.

Don't forget that Pascal was only meant to be a teaching language. That it was used for more than that says more about the other languages available at the time than it does Pascal. Peter
May 26 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent "Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> writes:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 23:50:28 +0100, Klaim - Jo=C3=ABl Lamotte  =

<mjklaim gmail.com> wrote:

 I think this have not been posted yet around here but might be  =

 interesting
 to the D community as it is actually criticizing several languages
 including D but with an interesting aproach:

 http://sebastiansylvan.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/language-design-deal-b=

So it seems D doesn't fit the bill due to point #3.. "Null pointer exceptions have no business in modern languages. Getting r= id = of them /costs no performance/, and statically eliminates the one big = remaining cause of runtime crashes that we still see in otherwise =E2=80= =9Cmodern=E2=80=9D = languages." /emphasis/ mine. Is it actually true that you can "remove" null pointer= = exceptions at no runtime cost? It's possible if you remove pointers from the language. It's possible if you statically require that any pointer/reference is = initialised at declaration. But, is it otherwise possible? Because both of these options are too = restrictive for a systems programming language. Point #4 might also be slightly at odds with D's current GC, but that = can/will improve, eventually (bigger fish to fry). Point #5 is likewise an area where D can/will improve, eventually (bigge= r = fish to fry) R -- = Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
May 28 2013
prev sibling parent Ziad Hatahet <hatahet gmail.com> writes:
--089e01681a1413bbfd04ddca9c72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Regan Heath <regan netmail.co.nz> wrote:

 On Sat, 25 May 2013 23:50:28 +0100, Klaim - Jo=EBl Lamotte <
 mjklaim gmail.com> wrote:
 /emphasis/ mine.  Is it actually true that you can "remove" null pointer
 exceptions at no runtime cost?

 It's possible if you remove pointers from the language.
 It's possible if you statically require that any pointer/reference is
 initialised at declaration.

 But, is it otherwise possible?  Because both of these options are too
 restrictive for a systems programming language.

language (rust-lang.org). --089e01681a1413bbfd04ddca9c72 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Regan Heath= <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:regan netmail.co.nz" target=3D"_bl= ank">regan netmail.co.nz</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmai= l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left= :1ex"> On Sat, 25 May 2013 23:50:28 +0100, Klaim - Jo=EBl Lamotte &lt;<a href=3D"m= ailto:mjklaim gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">mjklaim gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:= <br> /emphasis/ mine. =A0Is it actually true that you can &quot;remove&quot; nul= l pointer exceptions at no runtime cost?<br> <br> It&#39;s possible if you remove pointers from the language.<br> It&#39;s possible if you statically require that any pointer/reference is i= nitialised at declaration.<br> <br> But, is it otherwise possible? =A0Because both of these options are too res= trictive for a systems programming language.<br> <br><br></blockquote><div><br>The Rust programming language managed to do t= hat, and it is a systems language (<a href=3D"http://rust-lang.org">rust-la= ng.org</a>).<br></div></div><br> --089e01681a1413bbfd04ddca9c72--
May 28 2013