> What should be written (just brainstorming, here..) is a way to "tunnel" D
> method calls into C++ method calls, possibly via generated C functions in the
> short term, maybe more directly/transparently at some point in the future.
> 
> Kevin
> 

D has been integrated with SWIG ... from D links.
"Andy Friesen has taken SWIG  and modified it to generate code for D."

SWIG is basically a C/C++ parser that generates code that allows many other languages to interface to C/C++.  It produces very good proxy classes and function wrappers from what I have seen.

Unfortuantly it isn't rolled into the official SWIG website.  As with many things in D, the tools are 90% there, but are not official and have no maintainer.

Brad

Matthew wrote:

> 
> "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:42702E24.90904@nospam.org...
>> Benjamin Herr wrote:
>>> He also thinks it is inconsistent to have (object)
>>> reference types and value types with no difference in syntax.
>>
>> Hmm. This has stuck in my eye before.
>>
>> Somehow, though, I haven't been able to formulate any specific complaint about it. It's just a gut feeling: "this is not good".
> 
> I have much the same feeling. My gut's usually right - and I believe it is in this case - but it can be somewhat ungenerous with its explanations. ;)
I has the same feeling too.

-- 
          Vladimir

Matthias Becker wrote:

> Bad library, not even the basic collections you find everywhere. So D is unusable in any kind of project.
> 
> 
> A few C++ programmers see things like built in hash-tables and ask why the languages is bloated with stuff like that, which could be done in the library and then don't even give it a try.
That was my first feeling after reading intro on digitalmars site. Benefits described here seems not convincingly for me.

-- 
          Vladimir

"Vladimir" <kv11111@mail.ru> wrote in message news:d4qvgs$114p$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>
>>
>> "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:42702E24.90904@nospam.org...
>>> Benjamin Herr wrote:
>>>> He also thinks it is inconsistent to have (object)
>>>> reference types and value types with no difference in syntax.
>>>
>>> Hmm. This has stuck in my eye before.
>>>
>>> Somehow, though, I haven't been able to formulate any specific complaint about it. It's just a gut feeling: "this is not good".
>>
>> I have much the same feeling. My gut's usually right - and I believe it is in this case - but it can be somewhat ungenerous with its explanations. ;)
> I has the same feeling too.
>
> -- 
>          Vladimir

MATLAB uses "." independent of value/reference semantics and it works fine. The difference between value/reference only shows up in assignment behavior (which is the definition of value/reference anyway). But then MATLAB also doesn't have pointers.

> Or consider a hypothetical programmer/project who is likely to switch from
C to
> D.  If they are willing to switch from C to D, they will already have
switched
> from C to C++, right?

No, I know alot of C programmers that wont touch C++ ( hell most of them ? ) , particularly stuff heavy with calculations.

Charlie


"Kevin Bealer" <Kevin_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:d4q10r$306i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <d4olba$1mav$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says... <clip>
> >
> >My own take is that people would be less hesitant to give it a shot if
they
> >saw how easy it is to convert Java/C++ code to D and/or if it became possible to mix D with projects that use C++ or Java. The ability to mix
C++
> >with C was one reason why C++ became popular.
>
> Yes, now that I think about it, he ability to call into C++ would be a
huge
> advantage.  Not as a put-down, but think about a programmer who thinks C++
is no
> better than C.  What does D offer such a person?
>
> Or consider a hypothetical programmer/project who is likely to switch from
C to
> D.  If they are willing to switch from C to D, they will already have
switched
> from C to C++, right?
>
> I understand why D can't call into C++ now (the many ABIs and manglings of
C++),
> but I think it is not unsurmountable.  D adoption could be 20 times faster
if I
> could plug a C++ class into a D class.
>
> What should be written (just brainstorming, here..) is a way to "tunnel" D method calls into C++ method calls, possibly via generated C functions in
the
> short term, maybe more directly/transparently at some point in the future.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>

"Vladimir" <kv11111@mail.ru> wrote in message news:d4qvmu$114p$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthias Becker wrote:
>
> > Bad library, not even the basic collections you find everywhere. So D is unusable in any kind of project.
> >
> >
> > A few C++ programmers see things like built in hash-tables and ask why
the
> > languages is bloated with stuff like that, which could be done in the library and then don't even give it a try.
> That was my first feeling after reading intro on digitalmars site.
Benefits
> described here seems not convincingly for me.

The text can always be improved. What would be a convincing intro be for you?

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:d4n2nl$1hr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I think you're right. There's nothing necessarily /wrong/ the Digital Mars website, but a little CSS and a few simple graphical elements can go a long way. Obviously jazzy web design isn't Walter's favorite hobby, but there are many D programmers who are skilled at designing flashy web pages.

Is a flashy web page really an advantage? I see a lot of flashy web pages, and they don't impress me that much. The DM pages are for programmers, who (I assume) want to see a straightforward page that loads fast and is not gimmicky. Maybe I'm all wrong about this.

P.S. I also prefer a smaller number of pages with a lot of text to a larger number of small pages. The plethora of small pages means one is constantly clicking and waiting, which interrupts the train of thought.

I do agree that I am not going to win any awards for my english composition, and if anyone has any suggestions on rewrites for any part of the text, I'm all ears!

Walter wrote:
 > Is a flashy web page really an advantage? I see a lot of flashy web pages,
> and they don't impress me that much. The DM pages are for programmers, who
> (I assume) want to see a straightforward page that loads fast and is not
> gimmicky. Maybe I'm all wrong about this.

Probably no pragmatic advantage. I would say most hard core programmers are content with the simple/clean web pages as they are. But there are those (a lot in my experience) that like eye candy. For some reason it looks and feels more professional, even if it is a facade. If you want to "sell" a product, wrap it in a nice package.

> P.S. I also prefer a smaller number of pages with a lot of text to a larger
> number of small pages. The plethora of small pages means one is constantly
> clicking and waiting, which interrupts the train of thought.
> 
> I do agree that I am not going to win any awards for my english composition,
> and if anyone has any suggestions on rewrites for any part of the text, I'm
> all ears!
> 
> 

It doesn't even have to be flashy , CSS and a few images can go a long way to make it better.  Natural docs ( http://www.naturaldocs.org/ )  produces very clean interface and can be used for anything really.

Charlie


"Jason Mills" <jmills@cs.mun.ca> wrote in message news:d4rcck$1htf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
>   > Is a flashy web page really an advantage? I see a lot of flashy web
> pages,
> > and they don't impress me that much. The DM pages are for programmers,
who
> > (I assume) want to see a straightforward page that loads fast and is not gimmicky. Maybe I'm all wrong about this.
>
> Probably no pragmatic advantage. I would say most hard core programmers are content with the simple/clean web pages as they are. But there are those (a lot in my experience) that like eye candy. For some reason it looks and feels more professional, even if it is a facade. If you want to "sell" a product, wrap it in a nice package.
>
> > P.S. I also prefer a smaller number of pages with a lot of text to a
larger
> > number of small pages. The plethora of small pages means one is
constantly
> > clicking and waiting, which interrupts the train of thought.
> >
> > I do agree that I am not going to win any awards for my english
composition,
> > and if anyone has any suggestions on rewrites for any part of the text,
I'm
> > all ears!
> >
> >

In article <d4r1ki$14g8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Charlie says...
>
>> Or consider a hypothetical programmer/project who is likely to switch from
>C to
>> D.  If they are willing to switch from C to D, they will already have
>switched
>> from C to C++, right?
>
>No, I know alot of C programmers that wont touch C++ ( hell most of them ? ) , particularly stuff heavy with calculations.
>
>Charlie

Sure.  I know some myself.  If it hurts more to read, it must be faster code, aka if it tastes bad, it must be medicine.  But if they won't touch C++, they probably won't touch D either.

Kevin