digitalmars.D - Novel list
- Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d (12/12) Mar 25 2015 http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best...
- Kagamin (2/2) Mar 25 2015 or
- wobbles (6/8) Mar 25 2015 Interesting site.
- Martin Krejcirik (2/5) Mar 25 2015 doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax
- Dave S (7/12) Mar 25 2015 Good catch. I was about to complain about the "The thought that I
- Alex Parrill (5/6) Mar 25 2015 Yea, these charts are confusing, with the double negatives and
- wobbles (3/8) Mar 25 2015 This list isn't not confusing!
- Walter Bright (2/9) Mar 25 2015 Irregardless, not no how not no way!
- Rikki Cattermole (3/4) Mar 25 2015 Huh, we come off pretty good. Makes me kinda question their research
- "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (4/9) Mar 25 2015 Self-selection is never a good idea. Only 64 respondents have
- "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (4/4) Mar 25 2015 Ugh, I haven't looked too closely at this, but they apparently
- Dejan Lekic (6/7) Mar 25 2015 Nice one - I wonder what people answered to "PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN
- weaselcat (2/3) Mar 25 2015 The D comparison with C++ is interesting, it sums up why I use D.
http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-fo= r-very-large-projects --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Mar 25 2015
or http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/when-i-write-code-in-this-language-i-can-be-very-s
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 09:47:24 UTC, Kagamin wrote:or http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/when-i-write-code-in-this-language-i-can-be-very-sInteresting site. The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?) http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/items/d
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax
Mar 25 2015
"Dave S" <wrrx11 gmail.com> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:Good catch. I was about to complain about the "The thought that I may still be using this language in twenty years time fills me with dread" until I realized that being under 'Does poorly' means that people DON'T think that. Actually, I'd like to think they think the opposite of that.The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntaxYea, these charts are confusing, with the double negatives and the green up arrows next to negative aspects. A pro/con list would be much more clear.
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:This list isn't not confusing!The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax
Mar 25 2015
On 3/25/2015 7:52 AM, wobbles wrote:On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:Irregardless, not no how not no way!On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:This list isn't not confusing!The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 23:08:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:On 3/25/2015 7:52 AM, wobbles wrote:I've worked in code bases with similar issues! bool isNotDisabled = false; bye, loboOn Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:Irregardless, not no how not no way!On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:This list isn't not confusing!The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax
Mar 25 2015
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 01:29:40 +0000, lobo wrote:On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 23:08:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:where did you got my codebase?! ;-)=On 3/25/2015 7:52 AM, wobbles wrote:=20 I've worked in code bases with similar issues! =20 bool isNotDisabled =3D false;On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:Irregardless, not no how not no way!On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:This list isn't not confusing!The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve ( though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)doeas poorly at annoying syntax =3D> not annoying syntax
Mar 25 2015
On 25/03/2015 10:29 p.m., Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-for-very-large-projectsHuh, we come off pretty good. Makes me kinda question their research techniques.
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 09:47:57 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:On 25/03/2015 10:29 p.m., Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:Self-selection is never a good idea. Only 64 respondents have rated both D and C++...http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-for-very-large-projectsHuh, we come off pretty good. Makes me kinda question their research techniques.
Mar 25 2015
Ugh, I haven't looked too closely at this, but they apparently also ignore those that are undecided? Meaning that numbers like 90% meant X actually could be 9% meant X and 90% are undecided. Looks like entertainment.
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 15:53:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:Ugh, I haven't looked too closely at this, but they apparently also ignore those that are undecided? Meaning that numbers like 90% meant X actually could be 9% meant X and 90% are undecided. Looks like entertainment.the list of things that D does poorly is really _stupid_. http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/items/d
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 19:41:38 UTC, Mengu wrote:On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 15:53:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:what's wrong with it? a lot of it is double negative(i.e, does poorly at `has an annoying syntax` -> does not have an annoying syntax)Ugh, I haven't looked too closely at this, but they apparently also ignore those that are undecided? Meaning that numbers like 90% meant X actually could be 9% meant X and 90% are undecided. Looks like entertainment.the list of things that D does poorly is really _stupid_. http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/items/d
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 09:29:40 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-for-very-large-projectsNice one - I wonder what people answered to "PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN THIS LANGUAGE WILL USUALLY WORK IN FUTURE VERSIONS OF THE LANGUAGE" ??? :) We all know the answer to that question regarding the D programming language. :D
Mar 25 2015
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 09:29:40 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-for-very-large-projectsThe D comparison with C++ is interesting, it sums up why I use D.
Mar 25 2015