• ToNyTeCh (8/8) Mar 28 2011 Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it take fo...
• Nick Sabalausky (12/20) Mar 28 2011 I've never actually implemented either, and have dealt very little with ...
• ToNyTeCh (17/45) Mar 28 2011 Ah, yes, but I have an incling that D is also.. but it is "just" an
• Francisco Almeida (10/65) Mar 29 2011 3 examples, excluding CTFE:
• ToNyTeCh (2/85) Mar 29 2011 It doesn't matter to me. I was just posting when I wasn't drunk.
• Francisco Almeida (2/3) Mar 29 2011 Good for you. It certainly explains a lot.
• ToNyTeCh (2/5) Mar 29 2011 fuck you
• Emil Madsen (4/12) Mar 29 2011 --
• =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= (12/23) Mar 28 2011 You are asking one of those questions where the answer will be wasted on...
• Don (13/21) Mar 28 2011 This is an interesting question. The difficulty in performing a direct
• ToNyTeCh (2/25) Mar 29 2011 And who cares?
• Don (2/30) Mar 29 2011 You were the one who asked the question.
• Andrej Mitrovic (1/1) Mar 29 2011 This is obviously the same old D troll. Stop feeding him guys.
• Don (3/4) Mar 29 2011 This one was a good question. Actually a very good one. Regardless of
• Steven Schveighoffer (5/9) Mar 29 2011 Every once in a while, a troll outwits himself into generating a useful ...
• spir (8/17) Mar 29 2011 Maybe this is one possible right reaction to trolling (in some cases): t...
• Nick Sabalausky (4/19) Mar 29 2011 Yea, at the very least, I think it helps separate the true trolls from

"ToNyTeCh" <tt nospam.net> writes:

Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it take for 
each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)? The LOC is one 
parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just came to mind while 
typing the overall question. The intricacy of the compiler is much more 
important thatn the LOC. (Is D's compiler more intricate than C++'s?). 
Any facts, feelings, guesses, whatever, are all welcomed in response. The 
complexity in regard to usage would be a good thing to hear about from 
users of all levels of experience (with D and other languages). 

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"ToNyTeCh" <tt nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:imri5l$1ahi$1 digitalmars.com...
 Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it take for 
 each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)? The LOC is one 
 parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just came to mind while typing 
 the overall question. The intricacy of the compiler is much more important 
 thatn the LOC. (Is D's compiler more intricate than C++'s?). Any facts, 
 feelings, guesses, whatever, are all welcomed in response. The complexity 
 in regard to usage would be a good thing to hear about from users of all 
 levels of experience (with D and other languages).

I've never actually implemented either, and have dealt very little with the 
soruce for either, but these are my (unreliable) impressions of it:

C++ is a complex monster, and has a lot of bizarre complexity in areas that 
really shouldn't need to be so complex. D cleans up much of that. But that 
cleanup gives D room for additional, but "cleaner", things to be added, like 
CTFE. So they're both complex compared to the average "minimalism"-driven 
langauge, but D makes more effective use of complexity. One "unit of 
complexity" gives you more benefit in D.

Of course, this is a D newsgroup, so naturally we're going to be a bit more 
in favor of D, anyway, FWIW.

"ToNyTeCh" <tt nospam.net> writes:

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "ToNyTeCh" <tt nospam.net> wrote in message
 news:imri5l$1ahi$1 digitalmars.com...
 Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it
 take for each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)?
 The LOC is one parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just came
 to mind while typing the overall question. The intricacy of the
 compiler is much more important thatn the LOC. (Is D's compiler more
 intricate than C++'s?). Any facts, feelings, guesses, whatever, are
 all welcomed in response. The complexity in regard to usage would be
 a good thing to hear about from users of all levels of experience
 (with D and other languages).

 I've never actually implemented either, and have dealt very little
 with the soruce for either, but these are my (unreliable) impressions
 of it:
 C++ is a complex monster,

Ah, yes, but I have an incling that D is also.. but it is "just" an 
incling (read, a pretty good "guess").

 and has a lot of bizarre complexity in
 areas that really shouldn't need to be so complex.

It has to appease C programmers (and the C codebase) though. (One must 
ask if C programmers have a fountain of youth coded up somewhere to hang 
on so long!).

 D cleans up much
 of that.

Give me 3 examples.

 But that cleanup gives D room for additional, but "cleaner",
 things to be added, like CTFE.

I don't know "CTFE"... Compile Time... something? (Template 
masturbation?).

 So they're both complex compared to
 the average "minimalism"-driven langauge,

You mean scripting languages? Cuz those are in a separate category. But 
some level of comparison with those is valid for sure, for they are 
probably rewriting the rules moreso than the bit-level language 
endeavors.

 but D makes more effective
 use of complexity. One "unit of complexity" gives you more benefit in
 D.

If that is so, it could be shown. (A little Devil's Advocate).

 Of course, this is a D newsgroup, so naturally we're going to be a
 bit more in favor of D, anyway, FWIW.

Well the "in the paint" ones, maybe you. But surely most people here have 
to make a living and program in other languages and I'd be interested in 
opinions from those rather than the "in the paint" ones. 

Francisco Almeida <francisco.m.almeida gmail.com> writes:

ToNyTeCh Wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "ToNyTeCh" <tt nospam.net> wrote in message
 news:imri5l$1ahi$1 digitalmars.com...
 Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it
 take for each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)?
 The LOC is one parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just came
 to mind while typing the overall question. The intricacy of the
 compiler is much more important thatn the LOC. (Is D's compiler more
 intricate than C++'s?). Any facts, feelings, guesses, whatever, are
 all welcomed in response. The complexity in regard to usage would be
 a good thing to hear about from users of all levels of experience
 (with D and other languages).

 I've never actually implemented either, and have dealt very little
 with the soruce for either, but these are my (unreliable) impressions
 of it:
 C++ is a complex monster,

 
 Ah, yes, but I have an incling that D is also.. but it is "just" an 
 incling (read, a pretty good "guess").

D is complex, but not as complex as C++ (my opinion). There is less complexity
due to overcoming language limitation than there is in C++.

 and has a lot of bizarre complexity in
 areas that really shouldn't need to be so complex.

 
 It has to appease C programmers (and the C codebase) though. (One must 
 ask if C programmers have a fountain of youth coded up somewhere to hang 
 on so long!).
 
 D cleans up much
 of that.

 
 Give me 3 examples.

3 examples, excluding CTFE:
1) D does not impose full compatibility with C (i.e., whereas C++ compilers
also compile C, a D compiler may link to C binaries, but only compiles a
"clean" subset of C). As a result, there are no preprocessor macros in D.
Instead, you have the version statement, which is much simpler and organizes
your code more.
2) D has cleaner templates syntax as well as semantics: for example, you have a
class X(T) syntax which is much clearer for generic classes.
3) My personal favorite, the standard D IO library has a much cleaner syntax
than C++. No more shift operators for streams, simple functions with a built-in
option for C-style formatted output.

 But that cleanup gives D room for additional, but "cleaner",
 things to be added, like CTFE.

 
 I don't know "CTFE"... Compile Time... something? (Template 
 masturbation?).

CTFE (Compile Time Function Execution), together with other nice things such as
the static if statement, actually eliminates template masturbation from the
language. The compiler implicitly optimizes and executes functions at
compile-time, whenever it can.

 So they're both complex compared to
 the average "minimalism"-driven langauge,

 
 You mean scripting languages? Cuz those are in a separate category. But 
 some level of comparison with those is valid for sure, for they are 
 probably rewriting the rules moreso than the bit-level language 
 endeavors.

This is a matter of opinion, and up for debate. Statically typed languages like
D still have their own place. To each their own, I guess.

 but D makes more effective
 use of complexity. One "unit of complexity" gives you more benefit in
 D.

 
 If that is so, it could be shown. (A little Devil's Advocate).

Read above, and the language documentation. D is designed with the experienced
C++ programmer in mind.

 Of course, this is a D newsgroup, so naturally we're going to be a
 bit more in favor of D, anyway, FWIW.

 
 Well the "in the paint" ones, maybe you. But surely most people here have 
 to make a living and program in other languages and I'd be interested in 
 opinions from those rather than the "in the paint" ones. 

You can always ask in other language newsgroups, but always expect some bias,
depending on whose "side" the people who answer you are in. :)

"ToNyTeCh" <tt nospam.net> writes:

Francisco Almeida wrote:
 ToNyTeCh Wrote:

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "ToNyTeCh" <tt nospam.net> wrote in message
 news:imri5l$1ahi$1 digitalmars.com...
 Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it
 take for each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)?
 The LOC is one parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just
 came to mind while typing the overall question. The intricacy of
 the compiler is much more important thatn the LOC. (Is D's
 compiler more intricate than C++'s?). Any facts, feelings,
 guesses, whatever, are all welcomed in response. The complexity in
 regard to usage would be a good thing to hear about from users of
 all levels of experience (with D and other languages).

 I've never actually implemented either, and have dealt very little
 with the soruce for either, but these are my (unreliable)
 impressions of it:
 C++ is a complex monster,

 Ah, yes, but I have an incling that D is also.. but it is "just" an
 incling (read, a pretty good "guess").

 D is complex, but not as complex as C++ (my opinion). There is less
 complexity due to overcoming language limitation than there is in
 C++.

 and has a lot of bizarre complexity in
 areas that really shouldn't need to be so complex.

 It has to appease C programmers (and the C codebase) though. (One
 must ask if C programmers have a fountain of youth coded up
 somewhere to hang on so long!).

 D cleans up much
 of that.

 Give me 3 examples.

 3 examples, excluding CTFE:
 1) D does not impose full compatibility with C (i.e., whereas C++
 compilers also compile C, a D compiler may link to C binaries, but
 only compiles a "clean" subset of C). As a result, there are no
 preprocessor macros in D. Instead, you have the version statement,
 which is much simpler and organizes your code more. 2) D has cleaner
 templates syntax as well as semantics: for example, you have a class
 X(T) syntax which is much clearer for generic classes. 3) My personal
 favorite, the standard D IO library has a much cleaner syntax than
 C++. No more shift operators for streams, simple functions with a
 built-in option for C-style formatted output.

 But that cleanup gives D room for additional, but "cleaner",
 things to be added, like CTFE.

 I don't know "CTFE"... Compile Time... something? (Template
 masturbation?).

 CTFE (Compile Time Function Execution), together with other nice
 things such as the static if statement, actually eliminates template
 masturbation from the language. The compiler implicitly optimizes and
 executes functions at compile-time, whenever it can.

 So they're both complex compared to
 the average "minimalism"-driven langauge,

 You mean scripting languages? Cuz those are in a separate category.
 But some level of comparison with those is valid for sure, for they
 are probably rewriting the rules moreso than the bit-level language
 endeavors.

 This is a matter of opinion, and up for debate. Statically typed
 languages like D still have their own place. To each their own, I
 guess.

 but D makes more effective
 use of complexity. One "unit of complexity" gives you more benefit
 in D.

 If that is so, it could be shown. (A little Devil's Advocate).

 Read above, and the language documentation. D is designed with the
 experienced C++ programmer in mind.

 Of course, this is a D newsgroup, so naturally we're going to be a
 bit more in favor of D, anyway, FWIW.

 Well the "in the paint" ones, maybe you. But surely most people here
 have to make a living and program in other languages and I'd be
 interested in opinions from those rather than the "in the paint"
 ones.

 You can always ask in other language newsgroups, but always expect
 some bias, depending on whose "side" the people who answer you are
 in. :)

It doesn't matter to me. I was just posting when I wasn't drunk. 

Francisco Almeida <francisco.m.almeida gmail.com> writes:

== Quote from ToNyTeCh (tt nospam.net)'s article

 It doesn't matter to me. I was just posting when I wasn't drunk.

Good for you. It certainly explains a lot.

"ToNyTeCh" <tt nospam.net> writes:

Francisco Almeida wrote:
 == Quote from ToNyTeCh (tt nospam.net)'s article

 It doesn't matter to me. I was just posting when I wasn't drunk.

 Good for you. It certainly explains a lot.

fuck you 

Emil Madsen <sovende gmail.com> writes:

On 29 March 2011 11:30, ToNyTeCh <tt nospam.net> wrote:

 Francisco Almeida wrote:
 == Quote from ToNyTeCh (tt nospam.net)'s article

 It doesn't matter to me. I was just posting when I wasn't drunk.

 Good for you. It certainly explains a lot.

 fuck you


 Can we keep the mailing list in a sober tone, please?


-- 
// Yours sincerely
// Emil 'Skeen' Madsen

=?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 03/28/2011 07:59 PM, ToNyTeCh wrote:
 Seriously, I wanna know.

You are asking one of those questions where the answer will be wasted on 
the seeker. You've made it clear numerous times on this forum that you 
have a very limited understanding of C++.

 How many lines of compiler code does it take for
 each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)?

I can't answer that but there must be many.

 The LOC is one
 parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just came to mind while
 typing the overall question. The intricacy of the compiler is much more
 important thatn the LOC. (Is D's compiler more intricate than C++'s?).

Which D compiler and which C++ compiler do you have in mind?

 Any facts, feelings, guesses, whatever, are all welcomed in response.

Fact: You do not know C++. Feeling: You are feeling lonely. Guess: You 
are jealous.

 The
 complexity in regard to usage would be a good thing to hear about from
 users of all levels of experience (with D and other languages).

You need to have some programming experience in order to understand the 
complexities involved. What language are you learning currently? How 
many lines of code have you written?

Ali

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

ToNyTeCh wrote:
 Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it take for 
 each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)? The LOC is one 
 parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just came to mind while 
 typing the overall question. The intricacy of the compiler is much more 
 important thatn the LOC. (Is D's compiler more intricate than C++'s?). 
 Any facts, feelings, guesses, whatever, are all welcomed in response. The 
 complexity in regard to usage would be a good thing to hear about from 
 users of all levels of experience (with D and other languages). 

This is an interesting question. The difficulty in performing a direct 
comparison (LOC or similar) is that DMD still has some implementation 
gaps, so it will get bigger.

The parser for D is an order of magnitude simpler than C++, because it 
is completely separated from the semantic pass. In fact, generally this 
is true of the language: although there are some features that require a 
lot of code, they are generally well-contained. Templates are much 
simpler to implement than in C++, even though they are much more 
powerful, because they are well-contained.
So generally, the compiler is less intricate.

But in terms of LOC, by the time everything in D is fully implemented, I 
doubt that a D compiler will be significantly shorter than a C++ one.

"ToNyTeCh" <tt nospam.net> writes:

Don wrote:
 ToNyTeCh wrote:
 Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it
 take for each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)?
 The LOC is one parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just came
 to mind while typing the overall question. The intricacy of the
 compiler is much more important thatn the LOC. (Is D's compiler more
 intricate than C++'s?). Any facts, feelings, guesses, whatever, are
 all welcomed in response. The complexity in regard to usage would be
 a good thing to hear about from users of all levels of experience
 (with D and other languages).

 This is an interesting question. The difficulty in performing a direct
 comparison (LOC or similar) is that DMD still has some implementation
 gaps, so it will get bigger.

 The parser for D is an order of magnitude simpler than C++, because it
 is completely separated from the semantic pass. In fact, generally
 this is true of the language: although there are some features that
 require a lot of code, they are generally well-contained. Templates
 are much simpler to implement than in C++, even though they are much
 more powerful, because they are well-contained.
 So generally, the compiler is less intricate.

 But in terms of LOC, by the time everything in D is fully
 implemented, I doubt that a D compiler will be significantly shorter
 than a C++ one.

And who cares? 

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

ToNyTeCh wrote:
 Don wrote:
 ToNyTeCh wrote:
 Seriously, I wanna know. How many lines of compiler code does it
 take for each (Walt should have the best handle on this, surely)?
 The LOC is one parameter, but I don't want just that -- it just came
 to mind while typing the overall question. The intricacy of the
 compiler is much more important thatn the LOC. (Is D's compiler more
 intricate than C++'s?). Any facts, feelings, guesses, whatever, are
 all welcomed in response. The complexity in regard to usage would be
 a good thing to hear about from users of all levels of experience
 (with D and other languages).

 This is an interesting question. The difficulty in performing a direct
 comparison (LOC or similar) is that DMD still has some implementation
 gaps, so it will get bigger.

 The parser for D is an order of magnitude simpler than C++, because it
 is completely separated from the semantic pass. In fact, generally
 this is true of the language: although there are some features that
 require a lot of code, they are generally well-contained. Templates
 are much simpler to implement than in C++, even though they are much
 more powerful, because they are well-contained.
 So generally, the compiler is less intricate.

 But in terms of LOC, by the time everything in D is fully
 implemented, I doubt that a D compiler will be significantly shorter
 than a C++ one.

 
 And who cares? 

You were the one who asked the question.

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

This is obviously the same old D troll. Stop feeding him guys.

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 This is obviously the same old D troll. Stop feeding him guys.

This one was a good question. Actually a very good one. Regardless of 
the motivation behind it.

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:09:38 -0400, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 This is obviously the same old D troll. Stop feeding him guys.

 This one was a good question. Actually a very good one. Regardless of  
 the motivation behind it.

Every once in a while, a troll outwits himself into generating a useful  
discussion, and see how sour he gets when he realizes his words aren't  
provoking the right emotions :)

-Steve

spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:

On 03/29/2011 09:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:09:38 -0400, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 This is obviously the same old D troll. Stop feeding him guys.

 This one was a good question. Actually a very good one. Regardless of the
 motivation behind it.

 Every once in a while, a troll outwits himself into generating a useful
 discussion, and see how sour he gets when he realizes his words aren't
 provoking the right emotions :)

Maybe this is one possible right reaction to trolling (in some cases): take 
their words seriously, if not literally.

denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"spir" <denis.spir gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.2896.1301428213.4748.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On 03/29/2011 09:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:09:38 -0400, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:

 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 This is obviously the same old D troll. Stop feeding him guys.

 This one was a good question. Actually a very good one. Regardless of 
 the
 motivation behind it.

 Every once in a while, a troll outwits himself into generating a useful
 discussion, and see how sour he gets when he realizes his words aren't
 provoking the right emotions :)

 Maybe this is one possible right reaction to trolling (in some cases): 
 take their words seriously, if not literally.

Yea, at the very least, I think it helps separate the true trolls from 
legitimate people who might just not be very good at diplomacy.