• erik (13/13) Apr 20 2004 D looks like a nifty language.
• Mike Swieton (8/23) Apr 20 2004 There is a D front end for GCC. It's just not yet in the main GCC releas...
• Andrew Edwards (21/34) Apr 20 2004 value),
• C. Sauls (29/43) Apr 20 2004 No value in templates?
• Walter (8/16) Apr 21 2004 You can use it freely to build commercial apps, too.
• C. Sauls (4/11) Apr 21 2004 Now that's good news I wasn't aware of... :D
• Kris (14/27) Apr 20 2004 Let's have a vote here! This particular trout is:
• J Anderson (4/10) Apr 21 2004 It's not nice to suggest people are trolls, not the D way .
• C. Sauls (5/6) Apr 21 2004 And thus begins the first steps toward there one day being published,
• J Anderson (4/10) Apr 21 2004 Dam it, that was not my intention at all.
• Kris (2/3) Apr 21 2004
• Walter (6/7) Apr 21 2004 A young boy I know was constantly reminded to "behave", but would just a...
• Kris (5/12) Apr 21 2004 Cheers Walter; I'll stash that one away for future use
• J C Calvarese (3/16) Apr 21 2004 Yes, let's be well-mannereD.
• Matthew (15/28) Apr 20 2004 value),
• Andy Friesen (11/19) Apr 20 2004 The usefulness of templates becomes more apparent as you get used to
• John Reimer (3/12) Apr 20 2004 You know? That's true... I find that they are practically useless if

erik <erik_member pathlink.com> writes:

D looks like a nifty language. 

I maybe would have left out a few things: templates (doesn't add much value),
and certainly pointer arithmetic. I'd rather do something like java's jni. So
that it guarantees that D sources don't show up with pointer-based, complicated
looking stuff and scare people off.

I'm not going to go any deeper into this at this point. The fact that the
compiler is no free software, means that no one can improve the compiler;
especially in its platform-specific optimalizations. I mean, nobody knows
*everything* about *all* platforms. What about support for StrongArm? I'm sure
people would port the thing, if they were free to do so. Conclusion: it's too
much a one-company, or even one-man show to my taste. Without the source, it's
also a risky proposition to make yourself dependent on something that may not be
maintained any longer, at some point in the future.

Mike Swieton <mike swieton.net> writes:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:44:27 +0000, erik wrote:

 D looks like a nifty language. 
 
 I maybe would have left out a few things: templates (doesn't add much value),
 and certainly pointer arithmetic. I'd rather do something like java's jni. So
 that it guarantees that D sources don't show up with pointer-based, complicated
 looking stuff and scare people off.
 
 I'm not going to go any deeper into this at this point. The fact that the
 compiler is no free software, means that no one can improve the compiler;
 especially in its platform-specific optimalizations. I mean, nobody knows
 *everything* about *all* platforms. What about support for StrongArm? I'm sure
 people would port the thing, if they were free to do so. Conclusion: it's too
 much a one-company, or even one-man show to my taste. Without the source, it's
 also a risky proposition to make yourself dependent on something that may not
be
 maintained any longer, at some point in the future.

There is a D front end for GCC. It's just not yet in the main GCC release,
as it's only a few months (weeks?) old. 

Mike Swieton
__
Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not
utterly impossible.
	- Simon Newcomb; 1902 - 18 months before Kitty Hawk

"Andrew Edwards" <edwardsac spamfreeusa.com> writes:

"erik" <erik_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c64n6b$1qmt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 D looks like a nifty language.

 I maybe would have left out a few things: templates (doesn't add much

value),
 and certainly pointer arithmetic. I'd rather do something like java's jni.

So
 that it guarantees that D sources don't show up with pointer-based,

complicated
 looking stuff and scare people off.

 I'm not going to go any deeper into this at this point. The fact that the
 compiler is no free software, means that no one can improve the compiler;
 especially in its platform-specific optimalizations. I mean, nobody knows
 *everything* about *all* platforms. What about support for StrongArm? I'm

sure
 people would port the thing, if they were free to do so. Conclusion: it's

too
 much a one-company, or even one-man show to my taste. Without the source,

it's
 also a risky proposition to make yourself dependent on something that may

not be
 maintained any longer, at some point in the future.

D is a language... not a compiler: Which, as far as I know, is free for use
by anyone. DMD the compiler is only one possible implementation of this
language, so any engineer out there willing to write his own compiler is
free to do so. I'm sure Microsoft, Borland, and MetroWorks doesn't hand you
the source to their compiler. They implement and you use. Don't know but I
don't think Bjarne Stroustrup gave up the C++ compiler either, merely the
Language and interested parties created their own compilers. I also might be
wrong but I don't think Walter had the source code when he sat down to
implement Zortech C++.

Point is, the Language is free, so implement a free compiler if you doubt
the future of this one as much as you claim to.

Andrew

"C. Sauls" <ibisbasenji yahoo.com> writes:

erik wrote:
 D looks like a nifty language. 
 
 I maybe would have left out a few things: templates (doesn't add much value),
 and certainly pointer arithmetic. I'd rather do something like java's jni. So
 that it guarantees that D sources don't show up with pointer-based, complicated
 looking stuff and scare people off.

No value in templates?

template index(T:T[]) {
     int index(T target, T[] arr) {
         foreach (int idx, T item; arr)
             if (item == target)
                 return idx;
         return -1;
     }
}

Hmm.. now I can find the index of a value in absolutely any non-object 
array, without having to write a seperate function for each array type 
or play around with void*/void[]...  And yes I could modify/overload the 
template to make it object-compatable...  This is just one tiny little 
example of exactly why templates are indeed valuable.

Do away with pointer math?

Wouldn't be good for our C compatability.  And there are some generics 
and other things which are accomplished nicely using pointers.  Plus you 
can avoid them entirely if you want.  Instead of pointer arguments to 
functions, use inout, for intance.

 I'm not going to go any deeper into this at this point. The fact that the
 compiler is no free software, means that no one can improve the compiler;
 especially in its platform-specific optimalizations. I mean, nobody knows
 *everything* about *all* platforms. What about support for StrongArm? I'm sure
 people would port the thing, if they were free to do so. Conclusion: it's too
 much a one-company, or even one-man show to my taste. Without the source, it's
 also a risky proposition to make yourself dependent on something that may not
be
 maintained any longer, at some point in the future.

Its free for any non-commercial use (which is a good thing, since I'm 
using the heck out of it).  And the front-end is open-sourced, and as 
someone already said there is a GCC port of it ("GDC") which has proven 
itself nicely -- although I haven't yet personally had the pleasure. 
Walter started this train moving, that's why he has the position he has, 
but nothing's to stop anyone from walking off and writing their own 
implementation... in fact, I bet he'd love it.

-C. Sauls
-Invironz

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"C. Sauls" <ibisbasenji yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c64rj7$21rj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Its free for any non-commercial use (which is a good thing, since I'm
 using the heck out of it).

You can use it freely to build commercial apps, too.

 And the front-end is open-sourced, and as
 someone already said there is a GCC port of it ("GDC") which has proven
 itself nicely -- although I haven't yet personally had the pleasure.
 Walter started this train moving, that's why he has the position he has,
 but nothing's to stop anyone from walking off and writing their own
 implementation... in fact, I bet he'd love it.

That's right.

If, however, someone wants to build a closed source or commercial
implementation of D based on the D front end code, then they'll need to
purchase a license from Digital Mars. No need to do so if one is building a
GPL front end, or if it is reimplemented from scratch.

"C. Sauls" <ibisbasenji yahoo.com> writes:

Walter wrote:
 "C. Sauls" <ibisbasenji yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:c64rj7$21rj$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
Its free for any non-commercial use (which is a good thing, since I'm
using the heck out of it).

 
 You can use it freely to build commercial apps, too.

Now that's good news I wasn't aware of... :D

-C. Sauls
-Invironz

"Kris" <someidiot earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> writes:

Let's have a vote here! This particular trout is:

a) trolling
b) just found BASIC and figures goto is the height of cool
c) self-consumed grad-student who ... oh never mind.

"There, but for the grace of God, goes God"; Winston Churchill


"erik" <erik_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c64n6b$1qmt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 D looks like a nifty language.

 I maybe would have left out a few things: templates (doesn't add much

value),
 and certainly pointer arithmetic. I'd rather do something like java's jni.

So
 that it guarantees that D sources don't show up with pointer-based,

complicated
 looking stuff and scare people off.

 I'm not going to go any deeper into this at this point. The fact that the
 compiler is no free software, means that no one can improve the compiler;
 especially in its platform-specific optimalizations. I mean, nobody knows
 *everything* about *all* platforms. What about support for StrongArm? I'm

sure
 people would port the thing, if they were free to do so. Conclusion: it's

too
 much a one-company, or even one-man show to my taste. Without the source,

it's
 also a risky proposition to make yourself dependent on something that may

not be
 maintained any longer, at some point in the future.

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

Kris wrote:

Let's have a vote here! This particular trout is:

a) trolling
b) just found BASIC and figures goto is the height of cool
c) self-consumed grad-student who ... oh never mind.

"There, but for the grace of God, goes God"; Winston Churchill
  

It's not nice to suggest people are trolls, not the D way <g>.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

"C. Sauls" <ibisbasenji yahoo.com> writes:

J Anderson wrote:
 not the D way <g>.

And thus begins the first steps toward there one day being published, 
"The Tao of D"...

-C. Sauls
-Invironz

J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:

C. Sauls wrote:

 J Anderson wrote:

 not the D way <g>.


 And thus begins the first steps toward there one day being published, 
 "The Tao of D"...

 -C. Sauls
 -Invironz

Dam it, that was not my intention at all.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

"Kris" <someidiot earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> writes:

Yes, you're right Joel. I must learn to behave  :-}

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> wrote in message
 It's not nice to suggest people are trolls, not the D way <g>.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Kris" <someidiot earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote in message
news:c66cj7$1kjs$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Yes, you're right Joel. I must learn to behave  :-}

A young boy I know was constantly reminded to "behave", but would just as
constantly refuse. One day, he was asked why he wouldn't behave. He replied,
with impeccable kid logic, "I don't want to be Have, I want to be Bill [his
name]."

"Kris" <someidiot earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> writes:

Cheers Walter; I'll stash that one away for future use <g>


"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:c66rap$2g4l$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Kris" <someidiot earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote in message
 news:c66cj7$1kjs$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Yes, you're right Joel. I must learn to behave  :-}

 A young boy I know was constantly reminded to "behave", but would just as
 constantly refuse. One day, he was asked why he wouldn't behave. He

replied,
 with impeccable kid logic, "I don't want to be Have, I want to be Bill

[his
 name]."

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

In article <c65gso$2gr$4 digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
Kris wrote:

Let's have a vote here! This particular trout is:

a) trolling
b) just found BASIC and figures goto is the height of cool
c) self-consumed grad-student who ... oh never mind.

"There, but for the grace of God, goes God"; Winston Churchill
  

It's not nice to suggest people are trolls, not the D way <g>.

Yes, let's be well-mannereD.
Justin

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

 D looks like a nifty language.

It's getting there.

 I maybe would have left out a few things: templates (doesn't add much

value),

Bizarre point of view.

 and certainly pointer arithmetic. I'd rather do something like java's jni.

So
 that it guarantees that D sources don't show up with pointer-based,

complicated
 looking stuff and scare people off.

As something of an expert in mapping C/C++ to other languages, I can say
that JNI stinks. But, then, so does Java ...

;/

 I'm not going to go any deeper into this at this point. The fact that the
 compiler is no free software, means that no one can improve the compiler;
 especially in its platform-specific optimalizations. I mean, nobody knows
 *everything* about *all* platforms. What about support for StrongArm? I'm

sure
 people would port the thing, if they were free to do so. Conclusion: it's

too
 much a one-company, or even one-man show to my taste. Without the source,

it's
 also a risky proposition to make yourself dependent on something that may

not be
 maintained any longer, at some point in the future.

The front end is open-source. Currently the only Win32 back-end is that of
DMC++, but already there exist back-ends on Linux. So, basically, your point
is moot.

Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:

erik wrote:
 D looks like a nifty language. 
 
 I maybe would have left out a few things: templates (doesn't add much value),

The usefulness of templates becomes more apparent as you get used to 
thinking with them.

 and certainly pointer arithmetic. I'd rather do something like java's jni. So
 that it guarantees that D sources don't show up with pointer-based, complicated
 looking stuff and scare people off.

I think that D does the Right Thing by offering every reason not to need 
things like goto and pointer arithmetic, but not being afraid to offer 
them.  I like to think that I'm smart enough to know when the Wrong Way 
is the Right Way. :)

 I'm not going to go any deeper into this at this point. The fact that the
 compiler is no free software, means that no one can improve the compiler;

As others have said, the source to the frontend is included in the 
distribution.  David Friedman has already had notable success connecting 
it to GCC.

  -- andy

John Reimer <jjreimer telus.net> writes:

Andy Friesen wrote:

 erik wrote:
 
 D looks like a nifty language.
 I maybe would have left out a few things: templates (doesn't add much 
 value),

 
 
 The usefulness of templates becomes more apparent as you get used to 
 thinking with them.

You know?  That's true... I find that they are practically useless if 
you don't know how use them.  Go figure!  ;-)