www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - D at shootout.alioth.debian.org

reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Someone asked on 
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cb14j/compiletime_function_execution_in_d/:

"A question about D that's been bugging me: why aren't there any D 
examples at the language shootout site?"

I didn't know what to answer. I seem to recall there were submissions, 
am I wrong?


Andrei
Jun 04 2010
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu:


 Someone asked on 
 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cb14j/compiletime_function_execution_in_d/:
 
 "A question about D that's been bugging me: why aren't there any D 
 examples at the language shootout site?"


The maintainer of that site is uninterested in D. Don't waste your time on this.

Bye,
bearophile
Jun 04 2010
parent jcc7 <jccalvarese gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article

 Andrei Alexandrescu:

 Someone asked on




http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cb14j/compiletime_functio
n_execution_in_d/:

 "A question about D that's been bugging me: why aren't there any D
 examples at the language shootout site?"


 The maintainer of that site is uninterested in D. Don't waste your


time on this.

 Bye,
 bearophile


That seems like a good summary to me.

Here's a relevant post:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?
art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=103383
Jun 04 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu:

 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cb14j/compiletime_function_execution_in_d/:


Isn't the usage of "static" to run compile-time functions a bad practice? Time
ago I have filed a bug about something related.

Bye,
bearophile
Jun 04 2010
parent reply BLS <windevguy hotmail.de> writes:
On 04/06/2010 22:32, bearophile wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu:

 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cb14j/compiletime_function_execution_in_d/:


 Isn't the usage of "static" to run compile-time functions a bad practice? Time
ago I have filed a bug about something related.

 Bye,
 bearophile


Have the same feeling. Question remains is > What instead?

/ctfe/ int r = fact(100);

Guess you know about Walter's allergic reactions regarding the 
introduction of a new keyword. :)

nevertheless IMHO a
compile {
   int r = fact(100): // would be smart
}

bjoern
Jun 04 2010
parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
BLS:

 Have the same feeling. Question remains is > What instead?
 /ctfe/ int r = fact(100);


In D2 I use enum:
enum int r = fact(100);

(I think I have not yet understood of the full meaning given by Walter to
"static" for variables in D).

Bye,
bearophile
Jun 04 2010
prev sibling parent reply Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
On 04/06/10 21:07, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 Someone asked on
 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cb14j/compiletime_function_execution_in_d/:


 "A question about D that's been bugging me: why aren't there any D
 examples at the language shootout site?"

 I didn't know what to answer. I seem to recall there were submissions,
 am I wrong?


 Andrei


D used to be on there, it was removed due to the lack of native x86-64 
support when the benchmark was updated to an x86-64 box. I seem to 
recall them saying until this was sorted D wasn't getting its place on 
there.

Robert
Jun 04 2010
parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Robert Clipsham:

 D used to be on there, it was removed due to the lack of native x86-64 
 support when the benchmark was updated to an x86-64 box. I seem to 
 recall them saying until this was sorted D wasn't getting its place on 
 there.


He will probably not add D even if dmd becomes 64 bit. LDC is already working
on 64 bit.

Bye,
bearophile
Jun 04 2010
parent retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:31:31 -0400, bearophile wrote:


 Robert Clipsham:

 D used to be on there, it was removed due to the lack of native x86-64
 support when the benchmark was updated to an x86-64 box. I seem to
 recall them saying until this was sorted D wasn't getting its place on
 there.


 
 He will probably not add D even if dmd becomes 64 bit. LDC is already
 working on 64 bit.


You sound a bit pessimistic here, son. Why don't you just say it directly 
if you think the author is a dickhead? I don't think he is. I think it's 
reasonable to wait for official 64-bit packages for the toolchain. It's 
totally unreasonable to expect him to compile a custom version of the 
toolchain and spend hours on it every few weeks. After all, the other 
compilers can be installed with 'apt-get install foofoo'.
Jun 05 2010