• tomo (7/7) Jan 27 2005 Hi, I'm tomo.
• bobef (3/10) Jan 27 2005 I can not undestand why everyone is jumping for this damn .net framework...
• tomo (13/29) Jan 27 2005 I think that we develop with NET Frameork has an advantage than such as ...
• zwang (5/44) Jan 27 2005 You might find this article insightful:
• J C Calvarese (27/33) Jan 28 2005 Interesting article. He included a big plug for languages with garbage
• Walter (19/40) Jan 30 2005 oriented
• Jarrett Billingsley (8/16) Jan 28 2005 So far, it's very basic, but it looks like there's some stuff stubbed ou...

"tomo" <coffee270 hotmail.com> writes:

Hi, I'm tomo.
I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D language.
If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very much 
that you do so.

tomo
http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/ 

bobef <bobef_member pathlink.com> writes:

I can not undestand why everyone is jumping for this damn .net framework. It is
so damn slow (and ugly in my opinion)... Not as slow as Java of course...

In article <ctb1rt$2cki$1 digitaldaemon.com>, tomo says...
Hi, I'm tomo.
I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D language.
If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very much 
that you do so.

tomo
http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/ 

"tomo" <coffee270 hotmail.com> writes:

I think that we develop with NET Frameork has an advantage than such as MFC.
For example,
1. Speedy Development
2. Use on Linux with Mono
3. Efficient .NET Framework Debugger
etc.

But framework has many demerit.
1. Slow(Not native code)
2. Need .NET Framework
etc.

I think abount these problem and decided to use .NET Framework.

"bobef" <bobef_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:ctbj38$3eh$1 digitaldaemon.com...
I can not undestand why everyone is jumping for this damn .net framework. 
It is
 so damn slow (and ugly in my opinion)... Not as slow as Java of course...

 In article <ctb1rt$2cki$1 digitaldaemon.com>, tomo says...
Hi, I'm tomo.
I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D 
language.
If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very much
that you do so.

tomo
http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/

 

zwang <nehzgnaw gmail.com> writes:

tomo wrote:
 I think that we develop with NET Frameork has an advantage than such as 
 MFC.
 For example,
 1. Speedy Development
 2. Use on Linux with Mono
 3. Efficient .NET Framework Debugger
 etc.
 
 But framework has many demerit.
 1. Slow(Not native code)
 2. Need .NET Framework
 etc.
 
 I think abount these problem and decided to use .NET Framework.
 
 "bobef" <bobef_member pathlink.com> wrote in message 
 news:ctbj38$3eh$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 I can not undestand why everyone is jumping for this damn .net 
 framework. It is
 so damn slow (and ugly in my opinion)... Not as slow as Java of course...

 In article <ctb1rt$2cki$1 digitaldaemon.com>, tomo says...

 Hi, I'm tomo.
 I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
 Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D 
 language.
 If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very 
 much
 that you do so.

 tomo
 http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/


 

You might find this article insightful:
How Microsoft Lost the API War
By Joel Spolsky
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

In article <ctch78$14c6$1 digitaldaemon.com>, zwang says...
tomo wrote:
 I think that we develop with NET Frameork has an advantage than such as 


..
You might find this article insightful:
How Microsoft Lost the API War
By Joel Spolsky
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

Interesting article. He included a big plug for languages with garbage
collection:

"A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between
procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented
programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought
that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object
oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity
booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've had
in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you
automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it can
be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of
scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a chunk of
memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're done
with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be much
more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to explicitly
manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their
language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the
automated memory management, even if they misattribute it.

"Racing car aficionados will probably send me hate mail for this, but my
experience has been that there is only one case, in normal driving, where a good
automatic transmission is inferior to a manual transmission. Similarly in
software development: in almost every case, automatic memory management is
superior to manual memory management and results in far greater programmer
productivity."

jcc7

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7 cox.net> wrote in message
news:ctdom2$2u7n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Interesting article. He included a big plug for languages with garbage
 collection:

 "A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between
 procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object

oriented
 programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I

thought
 that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong.

Object
 oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity
 booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've

had
 in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you
 automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it

can
 be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of
 scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a

chunk of
 memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're

done
 with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be

much
 more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to

explicitly
 manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive

their
 language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the
 automated memory management, even if they misattribute it.

He's right.

 "Racing car aficionados will probably send me hate mail for this, but my
 experience has been that there is only one case, in normal driving, where

a good
 automatic transmission is inferior to a manual transmission.

You can't pushstart an auto car! You can't "rock" an auto car back and forth
to get out of a rut. An auto car doesn't give the control needed in very
slippery conditions.

And an auto car just doesn't provide that visceral thrill that a stick will
with a high performance engine.

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"tomo" <coffee270 hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ctb1rt$2cki$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi, I'm tomo.
 I'm developing the IDE for D language named 'Dixe' now.
 Please come to my homepage and let's make a community of IDE for D 
 language.
 If you have some special techniques to make a debugger,  I wish very much 
 that you do so.

 tomo
 http://tomo.panicode.com/dixe/

So far, it's very basic, but it looks like there's some stuff stubbed out. 
I don't seem to be able to compile anything correctly; I set the path to 
"c:\dmd\bin\dmd.exe" and it found the compiler, but it just says "error 
compiling main.d."

PLEASE make this a good IDE! :)  We don't have any very good IDEs yet, and 
it'd be great to have one!