hey you stole my idea :)
well my language is currently only on "paper" and probably will remain that way

I suggest you create a google newsgroup for your Q language.

"This software IS NOT free software; it is a proprietary product."

Do you expect to sell this in the future?  good luck with that

In article <da76gs$5fk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark T says...
>
>hey you stole my idea :)
>well my language is currently only on "paper" and probably will remain that way
>
>I suggest you create a google newsgroup for your Q language.
>
>"This software IS NOT free software; it is a proprietary product."
>
>Do you expect to sell this in the future?  good luck with that
>

Yeah I just slipped that in to protect my future decisions, whatever they may be.  Eventually it'll probably go open-source, but I don't know.

BTW, what was your idea?

Regards,
James Dunne

>BTW, what was your idea?

my idea: a C style language with modules (not OO) and strong typing, the "compiler" would emit ISO C code, use C linkage, no special library to start (use the standard C libs), no garbage collection, no #define macros

target market: embedded/real-time developers still using C

license: open-source of some kind

I'm sure hundreds of people have a similar concept, at least I started to document this language.

Q is more ambitious language than mine. good luck, I will watch on the Google groups.

In article <daa1l7$2f39$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark T says...
>
>>BTW, what was your idea?
>
>my idea: a C style language with modules (not OO) and strong typing, the "compiler" would emit ISO C code, use C linkage, no special library to start (use the standard C libs), no garbage collection, no #define macros
>
>target market: embedded/real-time developers still using C
>
>license: open-source of some kind
>
>I'm sure hundreds of people have a similar concept, at least I started to document this language.
>
>Q is more ambitious language than mine. good luck, I will watch on the Google groups.
>

Those are pretty much all of my goals, except I wanted to add a bit of expressive power to C.  I really should make it open-source, cuz it doesn't make sense not to do so when so many other great languages/compilers (better?) are available for free.

If you want to work on it with me, I'd be more than happy to allow you access to the code so that we can both realize our ideas.

BTW, my design document is assuming a standard C spec document is available.  So a lot more documentation must be written describing the C aspects of the language, what Q has changed, and what Q has added.  Much like the D specs. What do you have so far in your documentation, if you don't mind me asking?

Regards,
James Dunne

Folks,

with all due respect to each person that has replied to this thread, why are we talking about a new language on the D newswave?  D is not even finalized yet, and we're already talking about a new language (Q).  It's a lack of respect to Walter and Digital Mars.  What you are saying is that D is NOT, nor it will be, the language of your choice and you're going to create one.  This is harsh and unprofessional.  It should have been announced in the comp.lang group and the communication kept there...

Just a thought...

jic


James Dunne says...
>
>In article <daa1l7$2f39$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark T says...
>>
>>>BTW, what was your idea?
>>
>>my idea: a C style language with modules (not OO) and strong typing, the "compiler" would emit ISO C code, use C linkage, no special library to start (use the standard C libs), no garbage collection, no #define macros
>>
>>target market: embedded/real-time developers still using C
>>
>>license: open-source of some kind
>>
>>I'm sure hundreds of people have a similar concept, at least I started to document this language.
>>
>>Q is more ambitious language than mine. good luck, I will watch on the Google groups.
>>
>
>Those are pretty much all of my goals, except I wanted to add a bit of expressive power to C.  I really should make it open-source, cuz it doesn't make sense not to do so when so many other great languages/compilers (better?) are available for free.
>
>If you want to work on it with me, I'd be more than happy to allow you access to the code so that we can both realize our ideas.
>
>BTW, my design document is assuming a standard C spec document is available.  So a lot more documentation must be written describing the C aspects of the language, what Q has changed, and what Q has added.  Much like the D specs. What do you have so far in your documentation, if you don't mind me asking?
>
>Regards,
>James Dunne

i think you are absolutly right!

rko

In article <dagrps$2cm4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, jicman says...
>
>
>Folks,
>
>with all due respect to each person that has replied to this thread, why are we talking about a new language on the D newswave?  D is not even finalized yet, and we're already talking about a new language (Q).  It's a lack of respect to Walter and Digital Mars.  What you are saying is that D is NOT, nor it will be, the language of your choice and you're going to create one.  This is harsh and unprofessional.  It should have been announced in the comp.lang group and the communication kept there...
>
>Just a thought...
>
>jic
>
>
>James Dunne says...
>>
>>In article <daa1l7$2f39$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark T says...
>>>
>>>>BTW, what was your idea?
>>>
>>>my idea: a C style language with modules (not OO) and strong typing, the "compiler" would emit ISO C code, use C linkage, no special library to start (use the standard C libs), no garbage collection, no #define macros
>>>
>>>target market: embedded/real-time developers still using C
>>>
>>>license: open-source of some kind
>>>
>>>I'm sure hundreds of people have a similar concept, at least I started to document this language.
>>>
>>>Q is more ambitious language than mine. good luck, I will watch on the Google groups.
>>>
>>
>>Those are pretty much all of my goals, except I wanted to add a bit of expressive power to C.  I really should make it open-source, cuz it doesn't make sense not to do so when so many other great languages/compilers (better?) are available for free.
>>
>>If you want to work on it with me, I'd be more than happy to allow you access to the code so that we can both realize our ideas.
>>
>>BTW, my design document is assuming a standard C spec document is available.  So a lot more documentation must be written describing the C aspects of the language, what Q has changed, and what Q has added.  Much like the D specs. What do you have so far in your documentation, if you don't mind me asking?
>>
>>Regards,
>>James Dunne
>
>

Q is not designed to be a better D.

rko wrote:
> i think you are absolutly right!
> 
> rko
> 
> In article <dagrps$2cm4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, jicman says...
> 
>>
>>Folks,
>>
>>with all due respect to each person that has replied to this thread, why are we
>>talking about a new language on the D newswave?  D is not even finalized yet,
>>and we're already talking about a new language (Q).  It's a lack of respect to
>>Walter and Digital Mars.  What you are saying is that D is NOT, nor it will be,
>>the language of your choice and you're going to create one.  This is harsh and
>>unprofessional.  It should have been announced in the comp.lang group and the
>>communication kept there...
>>
>>Just a thought...
>>
>>jic
>>
>>
>>James Dunne says...
>>
>>>In article <daa1l7$2f39$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark T says...
>>>
>>>>>BTW, what was your idea?
>>>>
>>>>my idea: a C style language with modules (not OO) and strong typing, the
>>>>"compiler" would emit ISO C code, use C linkage, no special library to start
>>>>(use the standard C libs), no garbage collection, no #define macros
>>>>
>>>>target market: embedded/real-time developers still using C 
>>>>
>>>>license: open-source of some kind 
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure hundreds of people have a similar concept, at least I started to
>>>>document this language.  
>>>>
>>>>Q is more ambitious language than mine. good luck, I will watch on the Google
>>>>groups.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Those are pretty much all of my goals, except I wanted to add a bit of
>>>expressive power to C.  I really should make it open-source, cuz it doesn't make
>>>sense not to do so when so many other great languages/compilers (better?) are
>>>available for free.
>>>
>>>If you want to work on it with me, I'd be more than happy to allow you access to
>>>the code so that we can both realize our ideas.
>>>
>>>BTW, my design document is assuming a standard C spec document is available.  So
>>>a lot more documentation must be written describing the C aspects of the
>>>language, what Q has changed, and what Q has added.  Much like the D specs.
>>>What do you have so far in your documentation, if you don't mind me asking?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>James Dunne
>>
>>
> 
> 

In article <dah040$2ggt$1@digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
>
>Q is not designed to be a better D.
>
>rko wrote:
>> i think you are absolutly right!
>> 
>> rko
>> 
>> In article <dagrps$2cm4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, jicman says...
>> 
>>>
>>>Folks,
>>>
>>>with all due respect to each person that has replied to this thread, why are we talking about a new language on the D newswave? D is not even finalized yet, and we're already talking about a new language (Q).  It's a lack of respect to Walter and Digital Mars.

I meant no disrespect.  It certainly could be taken as disrespectful, however. For that, I do apologize.  All I wanted was some criticism on the language design itself.

>>>What you are saying is that D is NOT, nor it will be, the language of your choice and you're going to create one.  This is harsh and unprofessional.  It should have been announced in the comp.lang group and the communication kept there...

Have you looked at the spec for Q?  Like clayasaurus said, it is not designed to be a better D.

Releasing specs on a new language that I have designed on the D newsgroup has, in no way, anything to do with my language of choice nor does it imply that D is bad.

I certainly do understand how one (and a few have) could come to the same
conclusions you did.

You are correct in that I should've announced on the comp.lang group.

>>>
>>>Just a thought...
>>>
>>>jic
>>>

Regards,
James Dunne

In article <dagrps$2cm4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, jicman says...
>
>
>Folks,
>
>with all due respect to each person that has replied to this thread, why are we talking about a new language on the D newswave?  D is not even finalized yet, and we're already talking about a new language (Q).  It's a lack of respect to Walter and Digital Mars.  What you are saying is that D is NOT, nor it will be, the language of your choice and you're going to create one.  This is harsh and unprofessional.  It should have been announced in the comp.lang group and the communication kept there...
>
>Just a thought...
>
>jic
>

I agree, this is not the place for it.. I could perhaps understand if the tool itself was written in D because then it would be like many other D related announcements, but apparently that was not the motivation for the post here.

Plus to top it off, from the OP it looks like at least some of the code was based on DMD source, and certainly the design borrows a lot from D.

James is (was?) a pretty big fan of D, based on this:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/21518

So I'm not sure James meant the language as something that would neccessarily compete with D anyhow, but nonetheless this was really not a proper place for the announcement or discussion, IMO.

- Dave

>
>James Dunne says...
>>
>>In article <daa1l7$2f39$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark T says...
>>>
>>>>BTW, what was your idea?
>>>
>>>my idea: a C style language with modules (not OO) and strong typing, the "compiler" would emit ISO C code, use C linkage, no special library to start (use the standard C libs), no garbage collection, no #define macros
>>>
>>>target market: embedded/real-time developers still using C
>>>
>>>license: open-source of some kind
>>>
>>>I'm sure hundreds of people have a similar concept, at least I started to document this language.
>>>
>>>Q is more ambitious language than mine. good luck, I will watch on the Google groups.
>>>
>>
>>Those are pretty much all of my goals, except I wanted to add a bit of expressive power to C.  I really should make it open-source, cuz it doesn't make sense not to do so when so many other great languages/compilers (better?) are available for free.
>>
>>If you want to work on it with me, I'd be more than happy to allow you access to the code so that we can both realize our ideas.
>>
>>BTW, my design document is assuming a standard C spec document is available.  So a lot more documentation must be written describing the C aspects of the language, what Q has changed, and what Q has added.  Much like the D specs. What do you have so far in your documentation, if you don't mind me asking?
>>
>>Regards,
>>James Dunne
>
>

d is my favorite - i love it. frankly i do not need a discussion about a hobby in a place like this. me - imbasil - is trying to learn d, loving it and a forum for other endevours should be at the place of the OTHER endevour.

i think, as a learner, that there should be things d should have, but i think walter will fix it. soooorrrry for my english -  i try to learn that too.


rko


In article <dah040$2ggt$1@digitaldaemon.com>, clayasaurus says...
>
>Q is not designed to be a better D.
>
>rko wrote:
>> i think you are absolutly right!
>> 
>> rko
>> 
>> In article <dagrps$2cm4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, jicman says...
>> 
>>>
>>>Folks,
>>>
>>>with all due respect to each person that has replied to this thread, why are we talking about a new language on the D newswave?  D is not even finalized yet, and we're already talking about a new language (Q).  It's a lack of respect to Walter and Digital Mars.  What you are saying is that D is NOT, nor it will be, the language of your choice and you're going to create one.  This is harsh and unprofessional.  It should have been announced in the comp.lang group and the communication kept there...
>>>
>>>Just a thought...
>>>
>>>jic
>>>
>>>
>>>James Dunne says...
>>>
>>>>In article <daa1l7$2f39$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark T says...
>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, what was your idea?
>>>>>
>>>>>my idea: a C style language with modules (not OO) and strong typing, the "compiler" would emit ISO C code, use C linkage, no special library to start (use the standard C libs), no garbage collection, no #define macros
>>>>>
>>>>>target market: embedded/real-time developers still using C
>>>>>
>>>>>license: open-source of some kind
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sure hundreds of people have a similar concept, at least I started to document this language.
>>>>>
>>>>>Q is more ambitious language than mine. good luck, I will watch on the Google groups.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Those are pretty much all of my goals, except I wanted to add a bit of expressive power to C.  I really should make it open-source, cuz it doesn't make sense not to do so when so many other great languages/compilers (better?) are available for free.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to work on it with me, I'd be more than happy to allow you access to the code so that we can both realize our ideas.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, my design document is assuming a standard C spec document is available.  So a lot more documentation must be written describing the C aspects of the language, what Q has changed, and what Q has added.  Much like the D specs. What do you have so far in your documentation, if you don't mind me asking?
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>James Dunne
>>>
>>>
>> 
>>