www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Sorry

reply BLS <nanali wanadoo.fr> writes:
...writing a message frustated and in a bad mood never has been an good 
idea. <<D not for me anymore>>

What I've said was too negative and at least not fair against all the 
efforts allready made.

So, my apologies. Sorry!

Why this frustration : Simply because I have tried to translate some 
Java code into D. I wasn't able to do that because even a small Java 
programm allmost depends on java.util /*collections (Hashmap, 
Hashset,Hashtable, ...) */ as well as Java array and strings.
Due to the fact that phobos doesn't offer much support for these basic 
data structures it is, at least, very difficult to translate Java into 
D. (even by hand)

Meanwhile (today) I have seen that Mango offers something from 
java.util.* (even if it is not part of the binary ditribution) *and* 
listening to Walter's  RedBackTree query, I have some hope that mango 
collections will find a way into phobos.


Next : I am still convinced that a semi automatic  Java to D Translation 
is possible if we just have these java-like collections, a compatible 
Sting and Array??? class.

Some of you may have noticed that I spend some time on a translator tool 
like that. What I'll publish here in the attachemenmt is a not my code. 
The Code-Emitter attached is based on a Java Tree Parser.
But you'll agreee : The following,attached  Java code can be adapted to 
produce valid D code.



Björn
To test: You need 1) ANTLR 2.7.5/6, 2) Java 1.3 respectice 1.5 grammar 
and tree-grammar from the ANTLR Hompage 3) The attached file.
Oct 23 2006
next sibling parent reply Ary Manzana <asterite gmail.com> writes:
BLS wrote:

 I wasn't able to do that because even a small Java 
 programm allmost depends on java.util /*collections (Hashmap, 
 Hashset,Hashtable, ...) */ as well as Java array and strings.
 Due to the fact that phobos doesn't offer much support for these basic 
 data structures it is, at least, very difficult to translate Java into 
 D. (even by hand)


D has associative arrays, which can behave like any Java Map. And it has 
dynmic arrays, so you get lists. Arrays are in d, and strings also. So 
what's the problem?

BTW, I also think phobos should come with an extensive library of 
classes and functions, just like Java and .Net have (and I think this, 
and a "decent" IDE, is what make people use them), but not forcing the 
user to statically link all of it to the code.

Ary
Oct 23 2006
parent reply BLS <nanali wanadoo.fr> writes:
Ary Manzana schrieb:


 D has associative arrays, which can behave like any Java Map. And it has 
 dynmic arrays, so you get lists. Arrays are in d, and strings also. So 
 what's the problem?


You simply can't compare Java Arrays with D arrays.  And yes : 
Associative arrays and dynamic arrays enables a lot but you can't build 
*every* advanced datastructure upon arrays.  To translate Java into *D* 
it will also *help a lot* to use the same interfaces (of course with a 
D-ish implementation)

Regarding Java Arrays,Strings and Collections I would like to suggest : 
Just ask Shawn about porting SWT to DWT. :-)
Thanks for your feedback
Björn
Oct 23 2006
parent BLS <nanali wanadoo.fr> writes:
BLS schrieb:
   To translate Java into *D*

 it will also *help a lot* to use the same interfaces (of course with a 
 D-ish implementation)


I mean f.i using GNU classpath interfaces with a concrete implementation 
in D.
Oct 23 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:53:56 -0700, BLS <nanali wanadoo.fr> wrote:


 ...writing a message frustated and in a bad mood never has been an good
 idea. <<D not for me anymore>>

 What I've said was too negative and at least not fair against all the
 efforts allready made.

 So, my apologies. Sorry!



Bjorn,

Hey, no problem!  After all, the thread merely ended up spawning a  
gigantic discussion in which most people managed to mainatin a certain  
amount of level-headedness.  Nothing wrong with that.  That's a whole lot  
better than some of the past discussions.  :D

-JJR
Oct 23 2006
next sibling parent Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:
Hah, oh so true.

There have been quite some nice discussion lately in and after/because
of that thread, so it's really a good thing actually. ;)

Alex

On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 08:50 -0700, John Reimer wrote:

 On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:53:56 -0700, BLS <nanali wanadoo.fr> wrote:
 

 ...writing a message frustated and in a bad mood never has been an good
 idea. <<D not for me anymore>>

 What I've said was too negative and at least not fair against all the
 efforts allready made.

 So, my apologies. Sorry!


 
 
 Bjorn,
 
 Hey, no problem!  After all, the thread merely ended up spawning a  
 gigantic discussion in which most people managed to mainatin a certain  
 amount of level-headedness.  Nothing wrong with that.  That's a whole lot  
 better than some of the past discussions.  :D
 
 -JJR
Oct 23 2006
prev sibling parent BLS <nanali wanadoo.fr> writes:
..for your warm words.
hope somebody is interested in my annex.

Björn
Oct 23 2006
prev sibling parent reply he_the_great <jessekphillips+digitalmars gmail.com> writes:
Now I am still new to programming, but I don't see the need to implement 
Java style anything. Why do we need easy translation from Java to D? D 

C. Not only that but Java is a bloated object only language.

I also have found, other than GUI stuff, Java is very easy to translate 
into D. I know I haven't programed anything extremely complicated, but 
the basics never really change.

I don't know much about what Sean has been doing with his DWT 
translation, but I would think the problem he is running into is the 
back-end (dealing with the displaying of graphics), and not what the end 
user sees. Since Java just has to make calls to the virtual machine it 
can be universal, but Sean would be working on what the virtual machine 
does to display the graphics.

Lastly if you want to have the ability to use basic data structures as 
Java does, you could always create a wrapper (I think thats what you'd 
call it).

Like I said I'm a fairly new programmer, maybe I'm missing something, 
but this is where I stand right now.

BLS wrote:

 ...writing a message frustated and in a bad mood never has been an good 
 idea. <<D not for me anymore>>
 
 What I've said was too negative and at least not fair against all the 
 efforts allready made.
 
 So, my apologies. Sorry!
 
 Why this frustration : Simply because I have tried to translate some 
 Java code into D. I wasn't able to do that because even a small Java 
 programm allmost depends on java.util /*collections (Hashmap, 
 Hashset,Hashtable, ...) */ as well as Java array and strings.
 Due to the fact that phobos doesn't offer much support for these basic 
 data structures it is, at least, very difficult to translate Java into 
 D. (even by hand)
 
 Meanwhile (today) I have seen that Mango offers something from 
 java.util.* (even if it is not part of the binary ditribution) *and* 
 listening to Walter's  RedBackTree query, I have some hope that mango 
 collections will find a way into phobos.
 
 
 Next : I am still convinced that a semi automatic  Java to D Translation 
 is possible if we just have these java-like collections, a compatible 
 Sting and Array??? class.
 
 Some of you may have noticed that I spend some time on a translator tool 
 like that. What I'll publish here in the attachemenmt is a not my code. 
 The Code-Emitter attached is based on a Java Tree Parser.
 But you'll agreee : The following,attached  Java code can be adapted to 
 produce valid D code.
 
 
 
 Björn
Oct 25 2006
parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
he_the_great wrote:

 Now I am still new to programming, but I don't see the need to implement 
 Java style anything. Why do we need easy translation from Java to D? 


Because there's about a gazillion lines of Java code out there.  Whether 
you like Java or don't, Java is very very popular, and there are tons of 
useful libraries and applications written in it.  Also, as you noted 
below, the syntax is pretty similar.  Probably the most similar to D of 
any currently popular language.



 C. 


But Java was also trying to be an improvement on C/C++.



 Not only that but Java is a bloated object only language.
 I also have found, other than GUI stuff, Java is very easy to translate 
 into D. I know I haven't programed anything extremely complicated, but 
 the basics never really change.


The only reason people are interested in automatically translating Java 
to D is because if such a thing existed, it would be possible to 
basically to increase the amount of tested, quality code accessible to D 
users by 100X or more, practically overnight.

--bb
Oct 25 2006
parent BLS <nanali wanadoo.fr> writes:
Hi Bill,
You got it. Nothing else to say.
Thanks Björn

Bill Baxter schrieb:

 he_the_great wrote:
 

 Now I am still new to programming, but I don't see the need to 
 implement Java style anything. Why do we need easy translation from 
 Java to D? 


 
 
 Because there's about a gazillion lines of Java code out there.  Whether 
 you like Java or don't, Java is very very popular, and there are tons of 
 useful libraries and applications written in it.  Also, as you noted 
 below, the syntax is pretty similar.  Probably the most similar to D of 
 any currently popular language.
 


 improvement on C. 


 
 
 But Java was also trying to be an improvement on C/C++.
 
 

 Not only that but Java is a bloated object only language.
 I also have found, other than GUI stuff, Java is very easy to 
 translate into D. I know I haven't programed anything extremely 
 complicated, but the basics never really change.


 
 
 The only reason people are interested in automatically translating Java 
 to D is because if such a thing existed, it would be possible to 
 basically to increase the amount of tested, quality code accessible to D 
 users by 100X or more, practically overnight.
 
 --bb
Oct 28 2006