In article <dahb0t$2ovl$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
>
>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
>

I am very much a fan of D and will continue to develop in it in the future.

On another note, I did think it was related to D because I saw a lot of discussion about wanted features for D and I wanted to test them out in my own implementation to see if they are worth-while or not.  And, as you can see, the language is very D inspired.

But in the end, it is not D related and I should've exercised more vigilance.  I was just so happy I had something workin ... I got excited ;).

>>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>

Regards,
James Dunne