i know in advance that D is great but as a javanese i [we] need some missing
keywords for COMPATABILITY with java i mean throws for checked exceptions
and instanceof of checkd typecasting
i know i can do everything with D but with a large code i [we] need to transform
from java to D it is a tedious work
so we NEED these keyword just for COMPATABILITY .
----------------------------------------------- 
CONSTRUCTOR:
i don't know why you choose to make D constructor like this
i mean using this keyword as constructor
i think it is a bad idea , inconvenient and unreadable for a while
i think you also must use the C++/java style for constructor
and this FOR COMPATABILITY only.
--------------------------------------------------
THANK YOU
kortex

In article <ddig7b$m8m$1@digitaldaemon.com>, kortex says...
>
>i know in advance that D is great but as a javanese i [we] need some missing keywords for COMPATABILITY with java i mean throws for checked exceptions

As a C++ programmer, I think throws clauses are far more trouble than they're worth.  Particularly for a language that can call C code which may in turn generate system errors that propagate as exceptions.

>and instanceof of checkd typecasting

Dynamic typing will improve as D matures.


Sean

kortex wrote:
> i know in advance that D is great but as a javanese i [we] need some missing
> keywords for COMPATABILITY with java i mean throws for checked exceptions
> and instanceof of checkd typecasting
> i know i can do everything with D but with a large code i [we] need to transform
> from java to D it is a tedious work
> so we NEED these keyword just for COMPATABILITY .

For what it's worth, I'm a long time Java user and I utterly disagree with you. If D were to add keywords and operators to ease your issues of porting Java projects, where does it end? From how many other languages should keywords be added? While I would love to see some particular Java features implemented in D (reflection, introspection, dynamic instantiation), I don't expect them to be implemented the 'Java way'. Think of it this way, if you move to D permanently you only need to port the project once.

> ----------------------------------------------- CONSTRUCTOR:
> i don't know why you choose to make D constructor like this i mean using this keyword as constructor i think it is a bad idea , inconvenient and unreadable for a while
> i think you also must use the C++/java style for constructor
> and this FOR COMPATABILITY only.
> --------------------------------------------------

D is not Java. D is not C++. The reason it seems foreign to you is that you are not 'Thinking in D'. Once you've worked with D for a while, this() as a constructor becomes quite natural. And contrary to your difficulties, I now find it much more readable than having constructors named after the class - this() just jumps out immediately and screems 'I'm a constructor!' because it's identical for every class. Maybe it will do the same for you over time.

Mr. Parker I was about to say almost the same as You did.
I, as C++ user, could (acually i would not - but just for an example :)
require *_cast , throws, using (...) keywords; Modula-3 developers would
require lock, thread, unsafe ; C# developers would require something else...

Kind regards

Dejan

-- 
...........
Dejan Lekic
  http://dejan.lekic.org

kortex wrote:
> and instanceof of checkd typecasting

Already can be done, using cast().

# // Java
# if (obj instanceof Foo)
#   // ...


# // D
# if (cast(Foo)obj !is null)
#   // ...

-- Chris Sauls

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:45:47 +0200, kortex <kortex_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

> so we NEED these keyword just for COMPATABILITY .

I dare to say, that java needs to drop this keywords for compatibility with D. Not reverse. Ha! :> ;)
-- 
Dawid Ciężarkiewicz

In article <op.svewd2yo58xlqs@localhost.localdomain>, =?utf-8?B?RGF3aWQgQ2nEmcW8YXJraWV3aWN6?= says...
>
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:45:47 +0200, kortex <kortex_member@pathlink.com> wrote:
>
>> so we NEED these keyword just for COMPATABILITY .
>
>I dare to say, that java needs to drop this keywords for compatibility with D. Not reverse. Ha! :> ;)

I second this notion and propose, furthermore, that the language Java be known henceforth as D--. Sun?

--AJG.

AJG wrote:
> In article <op.svewd2yo58xlqs@localhost.localdomain>,
> =?utf-8?B?RGF3aWQgQ2nEmcW8YXJraWV3aWN6?= says...
> 
>>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:45:47 +0200, kortex <kortex_member@pathlink.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>so we NEED these keyword just for COMPATABILITY .
>>
>>I dare to say, that java needs to drop this keywords for compatibility  with D. Not reverse. Ha! :> ;)
> 
> 
> I second this notion and propose, furthermore, that the language Java be known
> henceforth as D--. Sun?
> 
> --AJG.
> 
> 

D--
LOL!

You have a point there, we must deal with other languages from a position of strength.