November 09, 2007 Re: what is the definition of new programming language | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to 0ffh | 0ffh wrote:
> Perl is such a fupped language [*], [...]
to be fair I should have added [*]:
"outside the set of it's originally intended set of use cases"
Regards, Frank
|
November 09, 2007 Re: what is the definition of new programming language | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Sean | I think that you'd better ask yourself whether it was truly C++ which excited you or because it was your first introduction to object-oriented programming, generic programming..
So, no D doesn't provide a new "paradigm", but it's still a much better language than C++ is..
Regards,
renoX
Sean a écrit :
> Maybe this is an old topic or maybe this is a stupid question. But I
> am really confusing about it. I learned C programming language in
> high school, and then I learned C++ in the first year in university.
> C++ likes opening a new world to me and gives me a new feeling about
> how to think the problems and how to construct the programs. The D
> language has lots of good features, I am exciting about these
> features, but I can not feel as exciting as when I learn the C++
> language. I do not know weather because it does not have a new
> thinking style about how to programming or something else. Anyway, it
> is a really good language. But what is the definition of new
> programming language?
>
|
November 09, 2007 Re: what is the definition of new programming language | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to 0ffh | 0ffh Wrote:
> 0ffh wrote:
> > Perl is such a fupped language [*], [...]
>
> to be fair I should have added [*]:
> "outside the set of it's originally intended set of use cases"
>
> Regards, Frank
One of perl's orgins is as a combination of sed & awk, which explains rather a lot if you ask me.
|
November 09, 2007 Re: what is the definition of new programming language | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to 0ffh | 0ffh Wrote:
> Bruce Adams wrote:
> > Antti Holvikari Wrote:
> >
> >> I feel exactly like you. It's hard to explain why. All this syntactic
> >> sugar just confuses me. Feature after feature, and a 1000 ways to do
> >> everything.
> >>
> > I have a preferred strategy for games like chess. Prefer moves that give
> > you more options over moves that restrict you. 1000 choices is a good
> > thing. Otherwise, you're shoehorned into writing something in a way that
> > doesn't always work well.
>
> It is like cybernetician Heinz von Försters "Imperative":
> "Always act in such a manner as to maximise your future possibilities."
>
> But note that we are talking abount /semantic/ choices, not /syntactic/!
>
> Perl is such a fupped language, because it's cluttered with syntactic choices that do not only /fail to enrich/ its semantics, but do even /obstruct/ elegant and meaningful additions to it.
>
> Regards, Frank
Let me put that another way. If all you have is a hammer....
everything looks like a nail.
I want the whole tool box.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation