www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - "The Case for D" on Ycombinator

reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858
Oct 30 2009
parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter Bright Wrote:


 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858


It's an interesting discussion. From it it seems several persons would like a D
V.1.5, something intermediate between D1 and D2.

Bye,
bearophile
Oct 31 2009
parent reply #ponce <aliloko gmail.com> writes:
 Walter Bright Wrote:
 
 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858


Added mandatory C++ attacks and D fanboyism
Oct 31 2009
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
#ponce wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:

 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858


 
 Added mandatory C++ attacks and D fanboyism


I read the exchange just now (nice job ponce) and am a bit surprised how 
much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire 
doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I 
haven't used another language extensively for about three years. And how 
the heck is TDPL a filibuster for D? I think it's accelerating, not 
delaying, D adoption.

Andrei
Oct 31 2009
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Andrei Alexandrescu:


 I read the exchange just now (nice job ponce) and am a bit surprised how 
 much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire 
 doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I 
 haven't used another language extensively for about three years.


Like everything else, templates too have some disadvantages and some
advantages. For the purposes of D I think that using templates is often

define typed collections.

And some things in future may be improved a little to make D template usage a
bit simpler or less visually cluttered. Introducing private/public names in
templates is a possible positive step. Other ideas are possible, we have to
think about them. (Time ago I have suggested a "type" type, to replace some
functional-style template usage with simpler imperative-style compile time
functions, but it was not appreciated. Maybe also because it introduces yet
another way to do the same thing, despite it looks like a simpler way).

Regarding Phobos2, some of its details may not be "battle tested", and some its
APIs may not be the best yet, some names may not be the best chosen (for
example some people think that "iota" is not the best name), but such bad
details may be fixed in future if you and others are willing refine the code. I
don't see basic things wrong in Phobos2.

(There's only an interesting change I'd like to propose for Phobos2, I'll talk
about it in another post. And it may be a bad/useless idea).

Bye,
bearophile
Oct 31 2009
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
bearophile wrote:

 (Time ago I have
 suggested a "type" type, to replace some functional-style template
 usage with simpler imperative-style compile time functions, but it
 was not appreciated. Maybe also because it introduces yet another way
 to do the same thing, despite it looks like a simpler way).


Doing type manipulation in D templates can be a bit clunky, but:

1. it is far easier than in C++
2. it is doable
3. the clunkiness is in the template body, not the usage of the template

and at the moment we have more critical things that need to get done.
Oct 31 2009
prev sibling parent reply Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:50:18 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 #ponce wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:

 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858


 
 Added mandatory C++ attacks and D fanboyism


 
 I read the exchange just now (nice job ponce) and am a bit surprised how
 much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire
 doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I
 haven't used another language extensively for about three years. And how
 the heck is TDPL a filibuster for D? I think it's accelerating, not
 delaying, D adoption.
 
 Andrei


Because tdpl is (perceived to be?) delayed, D2 finalization is delayed.
But unless D2 is stable, Tango won't switch to D2
and the Tango vs. Phobos won't get (at least) compatible.
LDC might as well switch to D2.

Not that this is entirely correct, but I think tdpl is perceived as 
filibuster for these reasons.
As far as I can tell, library and language incompatibilities (Tango/
Phobos, D1/D2) are a big problem. Mostly for newcomers to D.
Those who have settled with a combination may feel more comfortable, but 
still.
Oct 31 2009
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
Moritz Warning wrote:

 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:50:18 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 

 #ponce wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:

 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858


 Added mandatory C++ attacks and D fanboyism


 I read the exchange just now (nice job ponce) and am a bit surprised how
 much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire
 doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I
 haven't used another language extensively for about three years. And how
 the heck is TDPL a filibuster for D? I think it's accelerating, not
 delaying, D adoption.

 Andrei


 
 Because tdpl is (perceived to be?) delayed, D2 finalization is delayed.
 But unless D2 is stable, Tango won't switch to D2
 and the Tango vs. Phobos won't get (at least) compatible.
 LDC might as well switch to D2.
 
 Not that this is entirely correct, but I think tdpl is perceived as 
 filibuster for these reasons.
 As far as I can tell, library and language incompatibilities (Tango/
 Phobos, D1/D2) are a big problem. Mostly for newcomers to D.
 Those who have settled with a combination may feel more comfortable, but 
 still.


I understand. Well, what I can do is to keep on working! Page 317 and 
counting.

Andrei
Oct 31 2009
parent Moritz Warning <moritzwarning web.de> writes:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:06:15 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:


 Moritz Warning wrote:

 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:50:18 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 

 #ponce wrote:

 Walter Bright Wrote:

 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911858


 Added mandatory C++ attacks and D fanboyism


 I read the exchange just now (nice job ponce) and am a bit surprised
 how much others know about what I do, e.g how I don't use D. My entire
 doctoral research is implemented in D (to say nothing about phobos). I
 haven't used another language extensively for about three years. And
 how the heck is TDPL a filibuster for D? I think it's accelerating,
 not delaying, D adoption.

 Andrei


 
 Because tdpl is (perceived to be?) delayed, D2 finalization is delayed.
 But unless D2 is stable, Tango won't switch to D2 and the Tango vs.
 Phobos won't get (at least) compatible. LDC might as well switch to D2.
 
 Not that this is entirely correct, but I think tdpl is perceived as
 filibuster for these reasons.
 As far as I can tell, library and language incompatibilities (Tango/
 Phobos, D1/D2) are a big problem. Mostly for newcomers to D. Those who
 have settled with a combination may feel more comfortable, but still.


 
 I understand. Well, what I can do is to keep on working! Page 317 and
 counting.
 
 Andrei


True. Keep up your good work. Take your breaks. Have fun. :)
)
Oct 31 2009