On Wednesday, 27 April 2016 at 18:38:17 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 April 2016 at 18:16:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>
>>
>> He gave very specific criticism, along with a code sample, then made a prediction, followed by suggesting another competing language that might do better.  None of that is the usual content-free fanboy "bashing."  There is nothing wrong with occasional criticism of the competition, as long as we don't overdo it, either in frequency or by exaggerating.
>
> No, judging a language by the appearance of its syntax *is* fanboy bashing. BTW, some interesting points about Swift made by a Rust designer http://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/5785.html.

Syntax matters.  Both for the ease of programmers reading it and, as we've seen with C++, the speed of the compiler.

I look at that code sample and I don't want to read code like that.  I have the same feeling when I see template-heavy C++ code.  It is one of the primary reasons I use D, because it reads very easily to me.

Is it just because I'm used to C-style code?  Is it purely aesthetic?  I don't know, but there is a difference.  Walter has talked about an aesthetic quality to D that he tries to optimize, and whatever it is, it comes through to me.

And whatever you may think of Suliman's and my opinion, I guarantee that Rust's syntax is one of the main reasons it will never take off, because most programmers have such preferences.  The Rust designers may not care: they may have chosen the syntax that best suits their particular audience, just like Haskell, and they don't want it to become more popular.  But its syntax will limit it.

On Tuesday, 26 April 2016 at 21:49:33 UTC, Bill Hicks wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 April 2016 at 02:33:41 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> That's a pretty awesome rant! Bill, could you please email me your mailing address? I'd be glad to send you a DConf T-shirt. Thanks! -- Andrei
>
> Quitting a well paying job at Facebook to peruse a hobby sounds like something a person going through midlife crisis would do.  You may keep the T-shirt.  I suggest you smoke some DMT (and have a breakthrough), or have a few Ayahuasca sessions.  If that doesn't set you off on a path to the greatest positive impact, then nothing ever will.  Everything you've desired to achieve with D is a construct of your ego, and nothing more.

Someone didn't have their meds today.

On 4/26/2016 2:49 PM, Bill Hicks wrote:
> [...]

Criticizing D is fine here. Personal attacks are not welcome.

On 28.04.2016 05:55, Joakim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 April 2016 at 18:38:17 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 26 April 2016 at 18:16:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> He gave very specific criticism, along with a code sample, then made
>>> a prediction, followed by suggesting another competing language that
>>> might do better.  None of that is the usual content-free fanboy
>>> "bashing."  There is nothing wrong with occasional criticism of the
>>> competition, as long as we don't overdo it, either in frequency or by
>>> exaggerating.
>>
>> No, judging a language by the appearance of its syntax *is* fanboy
>> bashing. BTW, some interesting points about Swift made by a Rust
>> designer http://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/5785.html.
>
> Syntax matters.  Both for the ease of programmers reading it and, as
> we've seen with C++, the speed of the compiler.
>
> I look at that code sample and I don't want to read code like that.  I
> have the same feeling when I see template-heavy C++ code.  It is one of
> the primary reasons I use D, because it reads very easily to me.
>
> Is it just because I'm used to C-style code?  Is it purely aesthetic?  I
> don't know, but there is a difference.  Walter has talked about an
> aesthetic quality to D that he tries to optimize, and whatever it is, it
> comes through to me.
> ...

This is some D code I wrote:

template CreateBinderForDependent(string name, string fun=lowerf(name)){
    mixin(mixin(X!q{
        template @(name)(string s, bool propErr = true) if(s.split(",")[0].split(";").length==2){
            enum ss = s.split(";");
            enum var = ss[0];
            enum spl = var.split(" ");
            enum varn = strip(spl.length==1?var:spl[$-1]);
            enum sss = ss[1].split(",");
            enum e1 = sss[0];
            enum er = sss[1..$].join(" , ");
            enum @(name)=`
                auto _@(name)_`~varn~`=`~e1~`.@(fun)(`~er~`);

                if(auto d=_@(name)_`~varn~`.dependee){
                    static if(is(typeof(return) A: Dependent!T,T)) return d.dependent!T;
                    else mixin(`~(propErr?q{SemProp}:q{PropRetry})~`!q{sc=d.scope_;d.node});
                }

`~(propErr?`assert(!_@(name)_`~varn~`.dependee,text("illegal dependee ",_@(name)_`~varn~`.dependee.node," ",_@(name)_`~varn~`.dependee.node.sstate));`:``)~`
                static if(!is(typeof(_@(name)_`~varn~`)==Dependent!void))`~var~`=_@(name)_`~varn~`.value;
            `;
        }

    }));
}

Ugly code can be written in any language.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:40:36AM +0200, Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...]
> Ugly code can be written in any language.

"Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. :-)" -- Larry Wall

:-P


T

-- 
If the comments and the code disagree, it's likely that *both* are wrong. -- Christopher

On 4/28/2016 3:40 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Ugly code can be written in any language.

Of course. But my problem is when there is no way to write an attractive piece of code to perform some functionality, i.e. if you *cannot* write beautiful code.

On Thursday, 28 April 2016 at 22:40:36 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 28.04.2016 05:55, Joakim wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 April 2016 at 18:38:17 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Syntax matters.  Both for the ease of programmers reading it and, as
>> we've seen with C++, the speed of the compiler.
>>
>> I look at that code sample and I don't want to read code like that.  I
>> have the same feeling when I see template-heavy C++ code.  It is one of
>> the primary reasons I use D, because it reads very easily to me.
>>
>> Is it just because I'm used to C-style code?  Is it purely aesthetic?  I
>> don't know, but there is a difference.  Walter has talked about an
>> aesthetic quality to D that he tries to optimize, and whatever it is, it
>> comes through to me.
>> ...
>
> This is some D code I wrote:
>
> template CreateBinderForDependent(string name, string fun=lowerf(name)){
>     mixin(mixin(X!q{
>         template @(name)(string s, bool propErr = true) if(s.split(",")[0].split(";").length==2){
>             enum ss = s.split(";");
>             enum var = ss[0];
>             enum spl = var.split(" ");
>             enum varn = strip(spl.length==1?var:spl[$-1]);
>             enum sss = ss[1].split(",");
>             enum e1 = sss[0];
>             enum er = sss[1..$].join(" , ");
>             enum @(name)=`
>                 auto _@(name)_`~varn~`=`~e1~`.@(fun)(`~er~`);
>
>                 if(auto d=_@(name)_`~varn~`.dependee){
>                     static if(is(typeof(return) A: Dependent!T,T)) return d.dependent!T;
>                     else mixin(`~(propErr?q{SemProp}:q{PropRetry})~`!q{sc=d.scope_;d.node});
>                 }
>
> `~(propErr?`assert(!_@(name)_`~varn~`.dependee,text("illegal dependee ",_@(name)_`~varn~`.dependee.node," ",_@(name)_`~varn~`.dependee.node.sstate));`:``)~`
>                 static if(!is(typeof(_@(name)_`~varn~`)==Dependent!void))`~var~`=_@(name)_`~varn~`.value;
>             `;
>         }
>
>     }));
> }
>
> Ugly code can be written in any language.

I agree, both about the D code sample and the principle, but that's a very high bar.  This is uncommon code, likely impossible in most languages.  Whereas the Rust code seems like something you'd be more likely to run into, though I don't know what either code sample does nor do I want to look deeper to find out. ;)

Is common code ugly?  That's the threshold that must not be crossed, and I believe Walter says the same above, in a different way.

On Tuesday, 26 April 2016 at 12:34:49 UTC, cym13 wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 April 2016 at 12:19:40 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
>> Hi deadalnix,
>>
>> thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. The issue with RefCounted and classes appears to be fixed. I found this: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP74. I also found evidence on the Internet that the GC leaking memory is only an issue with 32 bit machines. Looks like I could have just googled those things. Didn't expect things to be that easy. Anyway, thanks for answering.
>
> Beware that what you found is but an Improvement Proposal, it hasn't been accepted in its current state yet and it hasn't been implemented either.

All right, thanks for the hint. Is there a timeline till when this DIP will be implemented? Also it would be nice if the GC, that does not leak with 32-bit D, would be plugged into 32-bit D from the beginning.

Regards, Bienlein

On Wednesday, 27 April 2016 at 18:08:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 4/27/16 1:56 PM, Bill Hicks wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 April 2016 at 15:14:17 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm just gonna leave this here.
>>>
>>> http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/03/tesco-buys-into-ad-tech-as-big-data-division-dunnhumby-buys-sociomantic-for-over-100m/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And a Big Mac is a healthy alternative to unprocessed organic food
>> because McDonald's has made billions in profit.
>
> As far as a business is concerned, McDonalds is not just a "throwaway hobby project". I'll let you continue finding absolutely irrelevant analogies to this if you wish, but I'm out.
>
> -Steve

One can only feel sorry for people like you.  That red-white-and-blue capitalist dick has been shoved so deep up your butthole that you can't see straight.

Michael Parenti explaining how those corporations become so 'successful':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs

Here is another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxcgm-atVlc

You never know, you might learn a thing or two.

On Sunday, 1 May 2016 at 07:35:43 UTC, Bill Hicks wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 April 2016 at 18:08:20 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 4/27/16 1:56 PM, Bill Hicks wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 27 April 2016 at 15:14:17 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm just gonna leave this here.
>>>>
>>>> http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/03/tesco-buys-into-ad-tech-as-big-data-division-dunnhumby-buys-sociomantic-for-over-100m/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And a Big Mac is a healthy alternative to unprocessed organic food
>>> because McDonald's has made billions in profit.
>>
>> As far as a business is concerned, McDonalds is not just a "throwaway hobby project". I'll let you continue finding absolutely irrelevant analogies to this if you wish, but I'm out.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> One can only feel sorry for people like you.  That red-white-and-blue capitalist dick has been shoved so deep up your butthole that you can't see straight.
>
> Michael Parenti explaining how those corporations become so 'successful':
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs
>
> Here is another:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxcgm-atVlc
>
> You never know, you might learn a thing or two.

Bill - please stop trolling this forum. If there is concrete stuff you don't like about D, please criticize in a rational way with arguments or better open a PR. If you don't like D, do something good with your time. Start your own open source project - or if you aren't in coding there are so many other good things that can be done in the world ;-)