Index » General » D (page 3)

November 16, 2008
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Brad Roberts wrote:
> > Walter Bright wrote:
> >> Tim M wrote:
> >>> I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public properties. Get & Set for everything.
> >> I never really understood the fear of that, either.
> >
> > Getters/Setters makes up for lack of 'const'.  Can't change it if there's no setters.  Also, setters are important for all of java's reflection systems, especially the IoC systems such as spring.
> Yes, but I see people use it everywhere because "it's the right way to program."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_programming
November 16, 2008
Walter Bright wrote:
> Brad Roberts wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Tim M wrote:
>>>> I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public properties. Get & Set for everything.
>>> I never really understood the fear of that, either.
>>
>> Getters/Setters makes up for lack of 'const'.  Can't change it if there's no setters.  Also, setters are important for all of java's reflection systems, especially the IoC systems such as spring.
> 
> Yes, but I see people use it everywhere because "it's the right way to program."

Well, imho, constant (immutable) objects often are the right way to program.  With that assumption, you can see that it's one way the pattern might evolve. :)

Just one observation.  Obviously there's room for lots of opinions in this space and I'm not a java developer.  I played with the language for several months back in the 1.0 days, and a little bit of development for the first time since then this past month -- not nearly enough to be considered a java developer.  For that I'd have to pick up and adopt the various idioms that are prevalent and drink more of the kool-aid.

Later,
Brad
November 16, 2008
Janderson wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Tim M wrote:
>>> I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public properties. Get & Set for everything.
>>
>> I never really understood the fear of that, either.
> 
> D of course allows one to write their own Getter/Setters so that's a non issue.
> -Joel

Of course I mean by that, that you can replace your own public data in D with functions without affecting the client.
November 16, 2008
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:06:33 +1300, Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com> wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Tim M wrote:
>>> I think you're thinking of Java. Those guys are shit scared of public
>>> properties. Get & Set for everything.
>>
>> I never really understood the fear of that, either.
>
> Getters/Setters makes up for lack of 'const'.  Can't change it if
> there's no setters.  Also, setters are important for all of java's
> reflection systems, especially the IoC systems such as spring.
>
> Later,
> Brad

Thats not what I mean. I meant a simple property that should have read/write access but has a get and set which do nothing extra. I never meant for this sort of thing to start. We could argue for years the advantages & disadvantages of get & set methods and still not come to a conclusion. It's just not worth it.

November 20, 2008
"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.408.1226733543.3087.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Tony <tonytech08@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Before I begin, know that the things I'm saying here are not meant as attacks.  It's just that your post has a rambling, semi-off-topic feel to it and so I'll do the same ;)

Choose your poison: mine is Merlot. (Good luck!). ( ;) ).

>
>> When I went to college, there was a BIG push to indoctrinate undergrads
>> with
>> PASCAL. When I got into an industry (engineering, not IT), there was that
>> same push: the schools and companies were collaborating toward the PASCAL
>> goal. PASCAL "did well" (Umm... for Borland?). I knew a FORTRAN a bit and
>> did "minor" stuff with that (fixed ("refactored") existing code mostly,
>> but
>> wrote complete programs also) and quickly found C (eureka!). Tthis was
>> circa
>> IBM AT. The technology beyond my responsibility or capability but within
>> the
>> environment was recommissioned PDP-11s running CP/M recommissioned for
>> realtime machine control (No, I never programmed those relics, though I
>> rebooted them from time to time).
>
> Sounds a lot like Java in today's school/industry world.

Really? I wouldn't know. That is sad. Java for elementary school maybe, but surely not college. Else it is "boiling in oil" (ask me, anyone, who is not familiar with the phrase).

>  Or maybe
> .net, depending on who's funding the university's CS department.

"Gag me with a spoon!". Nuff said.

>
>> For me, C came in the flavor of Microsoft C and I still have The Waite
>> Group's books next to me on my bookshelf, though I've not opened them in
>> over a decade. (My "stacks" are in the basement in banker's boxes, but I
>> know what I have down there). What WERE those "PASCAL pushers" thinking?!
>> I
>> think back to the maintainer (yes, there was just one) of all that
>> mission-critical (potentially industry pivotal) FORTRAN code ... such sad
>> lives software developers have. Those many many lines of FORTRAN were
>> pretty
>> much the work of one engineer (not all the the embedded theory of course,
>> though he knew it intimately also, but the code). Not a "programmer" or
>> an
>> "IT person", an engineer (no, not a sofware engineer! Think, physics,
>> runge-kutta, flame fronts and the theory of chaos, (OK, maybe not that
>> last
>> one, but he was old)). But I digress...
>
> You digress?  That's an understatement; your post looks more like an s-expression than like English ;)

I guess YOU (emphasis on YOU) had to be there. :P

>
>> The gist of my post, well not really a gist, but for lack of having to
>> use
>> more human processing power than necessary (aka, my brain) right now
>> (read,
>> 'gist' will do), I find it odd that a product having a lot of the same
>> goals
>> as the one I envision, is not one that I choose to use and that I search
>> for
>> another. (So much for the importance of "requirements specification"
>> apparently?).
>
> So.. what you're saying is that you agree with a lot of D's features, but you find it odd that you don't use it?

I wasn't suggesting any AGREEMENT (that is a legal term?). What I found odd, was that though the goals/requirements (some) are ones I want (some of them!), the end result is something I don't want to use. (Note that I am going to try to implement the language _I_ envision, be it just for fun or more... if nothing else, surely preprocessing C++ is in my future).

>
>> I did't have a question in starting this post, but having just gone
>> through
>> the harkening back (above) and back to reality now, I feel deja vu: C++
>> is
>> now my FORTRAN, D is my PASCAL and my envisioned language is my C. I
>> didn't
>> put a question mark in there because I think that I have figured out my
>> frustration with the current state of things. (Also, I'm so happy I'm not
>> still a FORTRAN programmer! :) )
>
> Wait.  Let me try to get this straight.

OK.

>
> C++ is your "language that you use to do practical things, even if it's not the best."

Yes.

> D is your "language that everyone is pushing for
> reasons you don't understand."

No, not really, but I did feel "pushed" to use PASCAL. I investigate things just enough to say yeh or nay and don't waste anymore time (I'm not "PC Magazine" presenting data for mass consumption). Do I feel D as being pushed? Answer: no. So my though was not clear: at that early programming indoctrination period, I trusted my instincts and learned C! (Amidst engineers who where writing FORTRAN). Call me a rebel if you want, but I am not. I just chose what "felt right". Short answer: I chose C becausse of it's syntax.


> And the language you want to make is
> your "language that is awesome for everything."

No, NOT at all. My goal is to build software, The language is a side-effect.

> Is that anywhere
> close?

So, no. Not even.

>
>> Is D today's PASCAL?
>
> If it had billions of dollars of corporate sponsorship and widespread acceptance at universities and workplaces, I might say yes.  But even if it were true, the entire philosophy behind the language is different.  Pascal (it's not all caps, btw)

"Good" trivia: Is the name of a once popular programming language 'PASCAL' or 'Pascal'? (I, OF COURSE, know that answer because I know that Louis Pascal was the one who put milk in a petri dish and discovered the cure to AIDS).

;)

> was designed originally as
> a learning language,

Sounds wrought with peril "designed as a learning <>". Hopefully, ideas of education have matured since those times.

> and as such, people became familiar with it in
> school, and started using it for real work.

Wait: Was it a real useful (reality) thing or not?! That would be luring those who can never be competent with the tool, potentially. So BAD idea.

>  Pascal is _meant_ to be
> restrictive, structured, and simple.

Useless? Apparently not: Borland successfully LURED a percentage of C++ programmers to use it's GUI framework that is written in Louie! (er, I mean PASCAL... Pascal?).

>  It came about in a time when
> structured programming was relatively new, and tried to teach people
> about it.  Borland got lucky.

I think it is still out there. Borland wasn't "lucky": how many C++ programmers do you know hacking Borland's PASCAL code?! My take on it: they did it wrong (on purpose) and marketed it succesfully (they made money).

>
> On the contrary, D is not meant to be a pedagogical language, or a purist language, or anything like that.  It's meant to be a practical language.

The obvious question is: where does the language domain end and the library domain begin?

>  It's meant to provide answers to a lot of the irritating
> aspects of C and C++

But longs to be more than "just" that. I understand. (Not that I'm "agreeing").

>  in a way that can still be implemented
> efficiently.  It doesn't really try much new (well, D2 does..).

Does it or doesn't it?! (It does). (Rhetorical, but feel free to respond).

>  It
> just takes a lot of existing, sensible ideas, and puts them together
> into an attractive whole.

Apparently, I "beg to differ" on that last part: "into an attractive whole".

>
> It's part of the reason why it's so great,

Bias noted.

> and at the same time, why
> it's so hard to sell.

Of course: no one in their right mind would buy QUALITY! :P

>  You can't point at a single thing that makes D
> awesome.

You said it, not me.

> You can't say "it's a great beginner's language!"

Unless I was a liar.

>  or "it's a
> completely safe language (like Java)!"

As if if adults would chose to go back to their mother's womb?  Duh.

> or "it's great for agile
> programming like Ruby!"

Ah, flavor of the month process proponent? "Pair" programming anyone? (Seesh.).

>  It's just a ton of little things.

Details don't make things "great" (your terminology).  D is not "great". If D is great, then I am good-looking! :P

>
> And of course, a language like this could only come from a sort of grassroots source.

No. You are propagandizing.

>  There is no corporate sponsorship.

Which corporations though? Consider I knew that an engineering industry company was "pushing" PASCAL. They just saw $$$.

> There is no
> governing body (well...).

Was this one of those "ton of things?", cuz it would be very lame at trying to sell D as a viable alternative (that's what D wants to be right: a viable alternative to C++?).

>  There is no gaggle of professors trying to
> make the language easier to pick up for new programmers (read:
> businessmen) who are trying their damndest to cash in on this
> "compooters thing".

Are you suggesting that professors do that? I have no knowledge of that.

>  And just as well, there is no money.

I CAN agree with that: there is no money. (Said uncontextually).

> No
> marketing, no bribes, nothing.  Which means no publicity.

Are you hinting that D is a CHARITY!?

>  D, or at
> least the idea and specification of it, has been around for .. almost
> ten years?

And I've been around for... nevermind that (!), but so what? I absolutely abhor Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. (Cuz they are playing that GAME?). (The lead vocals are like scratching fingernails on chalkboards, but do that to me over decades and "you win"? NOT!!! Sucked then, suck now.).

>  I think.  Maybe the spec was made in 1999 but not public
> until 2001.  In any case, it's been a long and difficult road to get
> the word out about the language.

"The Word".  (The new and improved Bible to surpass the King James or Jehova's version?).

>
> So that's why I don't think D is like Pascal at all.

Uhh... surely they won't be calling on you to market the product! (No offense, but you suck at marketing).

> It's not
> designed with a driving goal like Pascal.

Please state PASCAL's "driving goal" please.

>  And it's not backed by
> corporate or academic sponsorship like Pascal.

You are listing that as an asset then, right?

>
> (And to be honest, I'm still not sure what you think of Pascal.)

By now you do (?).

Tony


November 20, 2008
"dsimcha" <dsimcha@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gfmt00$1pih$1@digitalmars.com...
> == Quote from Tony (tonytech08@gmail.com)'s article
>> Is D today's PASCAL?
>> Tony
>
> No.  D is not a bondage-and-discipline language.

I'll accept all indications that choosing C at that "tender" time was the right choice.  ;) (Kidding: I am VERY practical).

Tony



November 20, 2008
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Tony <tonytech08@gmail.com> wrote:
> (...lots of stuff...)

I'm not actually going to reply to your post.  Not because I feel you've "beaten" me or something, but because, well, you're obviously unconvincable, and I don't feel like responding to each and every one of your seventy-four thousand comments.  You post a thread asking if people think D is the next "PASCAL" (it IS NOT all CAPS, by the way), never really defining what you mean by that, and then promptly disagree with most everything I say in my reply.  Okay.  I guess if that works for you..
November 20, 2008
Jarrett Billingsley:
> Okay.  I guess if that works for you..

D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and all that), so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)
Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)

Bear hugs,
bearophile
November 20, 2008
Tony wrote:
> "Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.408.1226733543.3087.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>> was designed originally as
>> a learning language,
> 
> Sounds wrought with peril "designed as a learning <>". Hopefully, ideas of education have matured since those times.
> 

Lol RESOLVE C++.

http://everything2.com/e2node/Resolve%2520C%252B%252B
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/sce/now/
November 20, 2008
== Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS@lycos.com)'s article
> D is a fringe language, and it's not an easy one (system language and all that),
so there's never shortage of unusual people in this newsgroup :-)
> Java groups are so boooring compared to this one :-)
> Bear hugs,
> bearophile

Do people seriously consider D a "difficult" language?  Given that it has garbage collection out of the box, builtin arrays, etc. I would have guessed that most people only consider it to be of moderate difficulty.  Yes, you *can* do down-and-dirty programming with pointers, manual memory management, etc. in it, but you don't *have to* unless the nature of your problem domain would require it no matter what the language.
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home