On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 09:29:40 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>
> http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/statements/this-language-is-best-for-very-large-projects

The D comparison with C++ is interesting, it sums up why I use D.

Ugh, I haven't looked too closely at this, but they apparently also ignore those that are undecided? Meaning that numbers like 90% meant X actually could be 9% meant X and 90% are undecided.

Looks like entertainment.

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 15:53:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> Ugh, I haven't looked too closely at this, but they apparently also ignore those that are undecided? Meaning that numbers like 90% meant X actually could be 9% meant X and 90% are undecided.
>
> Looks like entertainment.

the list of things that D does poorly is really _stupid_.

http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/items/d

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 19:41:38 UTC, Mengu wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 15:53:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> Ugh, I haven't looked too closely at this, but they apparently also ignore those that are undecided? Meaning that numbers like 90% meant X actually could be 9% meant X and 90% are undecided.
>>
>> Looks like entertainment.
>
> the list of things that D does poorly is really _stupid_.
>
> http://hammerprinciple.com/therighttool/items/d

what's wrong with it?
a lot of it is double negative(i.e, does poorly at `has an annoying syntax` -> does not have an annoying syntax)

On 3/25/2015 7:52 AM, wobbles wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:
>>> The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve (
>>> though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)
>>
>> doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax
>
> This list isn't not confusing!

Irregardless, not no how not no way!

On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 23:08:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/25/2015 7:52 AM, wobbles wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:
>>>> The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could improve (
>>>> though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)
>>>
>>> doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax
>>
>> This list isn't not confusing!
>
> Irregardless, not no how not no way!

I've worked in code bases with similar issues!

bool isNotDisabled = false;

bye,
lobo

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 01:29:40 +0000, lobo wrote:

> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 23:08:52 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 3/25/2015 7:52 AM, wobbles wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:21:32 UTC, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 12:01:15 UTC, wobbles wrote:
>>>>> The "DOES POORLY AT..." column is good reading here for how D could
>>>>> improve (
>>>>> though some of the comments are stupid. D has an annoying syntax!?)
>>>>
>>>> doeas poorly at annoying syntax => not annoying syntax
>>>
>>> This list isn't not confusing!
>>
>> Irregardless, not no how not no way!
> 
> I've worked in code bases with similar issues!
> 
> bool isNotDisabled = false;

where did you got my codebase?! ;-)