And what can you say about this:
http://dnet.codeplex.com/

On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 17:36:51 UTC, EngineerSpock wrote:
> And what can you say about this:
> http://dnet.codeplex.com/

I can say the last commit was 3 years ago. Make your own conclusions.

On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 16:32:10 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
>>> .NET is too limited to represent the language,
>> Can you tell us why?
> Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).

D is theoretically designed for precise GC, too. But in .NET you can only have a reference to an array as a whole, so a slice must be represented as an array, offset and length. The real problem I see is that in D you can have a slice that does *not* refer to an array on the GC heap, such as a slice on a non-GC heap, or on the stack (currently, in fact, in D you can easily make pointers and slices that point to stack data to outlive the stack frame, which the 'safe' .NET type system inherently prevents).

.NET allows one to break the type system using pointers (in functions marked 'unsafe'), so as far as I can tell D for .NET could theoretically do everything that native D does, but with some annoying caveats mainly related to garbage collection. For instance, in a slice, I believe you can't use the same memory word to refer to an array on the GC heap OR an array that is not on the GC heap (unless you want to pin all your arrays, and you really don't). IIUC, doing so can crash the garbage collector.

I'm thinking that a .NET D slice would be implemented as a reference to a GC array and two integers (start and length). If the slice refers to a non-GC array, it would be stored in the same space, as a null reference, a pointer cast to IntPtr, and a length. However, this would make the code for accessing a slice rather clumsy and/or inefficient.

.NET has other limitations too, but again I expect there would be workarounds.

On Sunday, 29 July 2012 at 17:11:55 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> This could get a little hairy:
>
> struct S{
>     int x,y;
> }
>
> void main(){
>     S s;
>     auto p = &s.y;
>     // ...
> }

How does C++ for .NET handle this?

EngineerSpock wrote:
> There is a couple of questions.
>
> 1. What about interoperability of D and .NET platform?

What about "it"? Are you a software developer or a Microsoft bitch?

> 2. What is the difference between pure D and D for .NET?

There is no "D for .net". If you want that, pick your crime, do it, go to prison and ... nevermind.

> 3. Can I write code on pure D and then compile it to MSIL and use it further in .NET environment?

Lame try troll. Your point was: "Is .net formidable?". If you work for Microsoft you hope so.

> 4. Are there many libraries for D?

I can't answer that: I don't know.

>  Can D just use C\C++ dll's
> without pain for programmer?

Hopefully not. (I'll expect my check in the mail for such promotion Ders). :P

>
> Thank you in advance)))

That was trite.

Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 29-07-2012 17:30, EngineerSpock wrote:
>> There is a couple of questions.
>>
>> 1. What about interoperability of D and .NET platform?
>
> You should be able to write C routines in D that .NET's P/Invoke can call.
>> 2. What is the difference between pure D and D for .NET?
>
> D for .NET is dead because .NET is too limited to represent the language, so describing this isn't really worthwhile. :)

That is "a lie" (save for you may not know). .net is a Microsoft product at the API-ish level. It "strikes a cord" with "real" programmers, surely. Alex needs to be more careful when he posts.  .net is not dead. Not even NOT relevant for D. D is at the language level. (AKA, "the language level"). "It", cannot address higher level concerns, for it is not even evolved or relevant as a child. "Lord of the Flies" and D, have something in common? Learning perhaps? Is D an island of childish thought "promogulated" with the zeal of an adolescent "guitar hero", "re"inventing "rock-n-roll" and wanking his pecker? The island is overloaded with comers. "freedom reigns", and then you grow up. Then what? The drug stops. You realize your enemy is formidable. Your scope has been small. But your enemy knew that all along. And you might even realize that pissing in the wind and beating it, was your same old spiel. The wind is not your enemy. And neither is time. You battle, and are too quick to battle, that which you do not know. I assure you that all you battle is time. And time is not interested in your childish games. You are going to lose. A war that does not exist, save for only your "lordness", which begs the question is D a lemon tree worthy of pissing on? I think it is dismissabke without conjecture. Exclude the masturbatory adolescnet males and you have... tada! What? Nothing? Guitar hero. Lord of the flies?

Close this wank room.

bearophile wrote:
> Alex Rønne Petersen:
>
>> .NET is too limited to represent the language,
>
> Can you tell us why?
>

He's playing you, sucker.

Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:32:08 +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen <alex@lycus.org> wrote:
>
>> On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
>>> Alex Rønne Petersen:
>>>
>>>> .NET is too limited to represent the language,
>>>
>>> Can you tell us why?
>>>
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>>
>> Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).
>
> So one couldn't simply use a two-level system, with a slice referencing an array, and holding an offset and a length?

D is a programming language. Why don't you go to your metrosexual sushi bar and "talk programming", bitch?

EngineerSpock wrote:
> And what can you say about this:
> http://dnet.codeplex.com/

You came to the right group: buy your dildo here.

Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07/29/2012 06:32 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> On 29-07-2012 17:36, bearophile wrote:
>>> Alex Rønne Petersen:
>>>
>>>> .NET is too limited to represent the language,
>>>
>>> Can you tell us why?
>>>
>>> Bye,
>>> bearophile
>>
>> Array slices. The .NET type system has no way to represent them because it's designed for precise GC, and array slices allow interior pointers in the heap (as opposed to the stack when passing a field of an object by reference to a function, or whatever).
>>
>
> I think all of CTFE-D should map to .NET without much hassle.
>

No, you cannot wank as an adolescent forever. There are too many males and you know it so you are afraid of "growing up", but it really is not up to you.