• bearophile (8/8) Mar 04 2008 A nice article that shows why D may be better without the "new" statemen...
• renoX (7/11) Mar 04 2008 Very interesting, thanks. You're right: D would be better to follow his ...
• Sean Kelly (5/7) Mar 04 2008 Interesting article, but I don't think that it applies to D because D co...
• Robert Fraser (10/14) Mar 04 2008 Interesting articles! First one was too long ;-P, but here are my

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

A nice article that shows why D may be better without the "new" statement (and
Python just uses () to instantiate, but D may need a finer control during
struct/object creation):
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/c++-new.html


Pattern matching, like in Mathematica (very refined), OCaml (faster), Haskell
(simple), or OMeta (powerful) is probably useful inside D too, this is a page
from Haskell docs:
http://www.haskell.org/tutorial/patterns.html


With the closures of D 2.x, D may need to improve its scoping rules to
something more clean:
http://tratt.net/laurie/tech_articles/articles/designing_sane_scoping_rules

Bye,
bearophile

renoX <renosky free.fr> writes:

bearophile Wrote:

 A nice article that shows why D may be better without the "new" statement (and
Python just uses () to instantiate, but D may need a finer control during
struct/object creation):
 http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/c++-new.html

Very interesting, thanks. You're right: D would be better to follow his advice
(though I suspect that it may prove harder than it seems).
 
[cut]
 With the closures of D 2.x, D may need to improve its scoping rules to
something more clean:
 http://tratt.net/laurie/tech_articles/articles/designing_sane_scoping_rules

Also interesting, although I think the way she oppose nonlocal and global is
quite artificial, those are different scope with different usage, and I wasn't
surprised at all by the way Python behave in her first example, even though I
don't know much about Python.

Thanks for these links.
renoX

Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:

== Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS lycos.com)'s article
 A nice article that shows why D may be better without the "new" statement (and
Python just uses () to

instantiate, but D may need a finer control during struct/object creation):
 http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/c++-new.html

Interesting article, but I don't think that it applies to D because D contains
no polymorphic value types,
and thus the syntax for new/delete is consistent for all types in D.  Still
reading the other links.


Sean

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Interesting articles! First one was too long ;-P, but here are my 
thoughts on the others:

bearophile wrote:
 Pattern matching, like in Mathematica (very refined), OCaml (faster), Haskell
(simple), or OMeta (powerful) is probably useful inside D too, this is a page
from Haskell docs:
 http://www.haskell.org/tutorial/patterns.html

Well, I agree pattern matching is a useful construct. We already have 
some sort of "pattern matching" with template specialization. How 
exactly do you think this could be worked into D, however, since we 
don't have first-class tuples or dynamic typing?

 With the closures of D 2.x, D may need to improve its scoping rules to
something more clean:
 http://tratt.net/laurie/tech_articles/articles/designing_sane_scoping_rules

D doesn't have implicit variable declaration, so this isn't as much of 
an issue. IMO, marking every other variable I reference (i.e. member 
variables in classes enclosing methods, etc.), would just be too much work.