View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 05, 2012
Re: Damn C++ and damn D!
On 2/5/12 9:57 AM, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Timon Gehr<timon.gehr@gmx.ch>  wrote:
>> immutable variable = (boolean_condition) ? {
>>     // initialize based on boolean_condition being true
>> }():{
>>     // initialize based on boolean_condition being false
>> }();
>>
>>
>
> Cool, now I want some syntactic sugar ;). I write this all the time!

Make it a function.

Andrei
February 05, 2012
Re: Damn C++ and damn D!
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> On 2/5/12 9:57 AM, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Timon Gehr<timon.gehr@gmx.ch>  wrote:
>>>
>>> immutable variable = (boolean_condition) ? {
>>>    // initialize based on boolean_condition being true
>>> }():{
>>>    // initialize based on boolean_condition being false
>>> }();
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Cool, now I want some syntactic sugar ;). I write this all the time!
>
>
> Make it a function.
>

I agree that in theory that you can do all this stuff in D but the
reality is that developers are lazy and end up fighting the language.
It is probably true that in a well structure/abstracted program this
is not a problem but the reality is that a lot programs don't start
this way. I listen a very enlightening talk by Gilad Bracha the other
day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IavVtOE_Fg. I still not ready to
completely agree with him but I do see his point about a language
getting out a programers way...

-Jose

> Andrei
February 05, 2012
Re: Damn C++ and damn D!
On 2/5/12 10:25 AM, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>  wrote:
>> On 2/5/12 9:57 AM, Jose Armando Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Timon Gehr<timon.gehr@gmx.ch>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> immutable variable = (boolean_condition) ? {
>>>>     // initialize based on boolean_condition being true
>>>> }():{
>>>>     // initialize based on boolean_condition being false
>>>> }();
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Cool, now I want some syntactic sugar ;). I write this all the time!
>>
>>
>> Make it a function.
>>
>
> I agree that in theory that you can do all this stuff in D but the
> reality is that developers are lazy and end up fighting the language.
> It is probably true that in a well structure/abstracted program this
> is not a problem but the reality is that a lot programs don't start
> this way.

I agree with the general argument but I find it disconnected from the 
case in point. It's not "all this stuff", it's one little local thing, 
and I'd find it tenuous to claim that such a small difference in syntax 
actually matters for anything.

> I listen a very enlightening talk by Gilad Bracha the other
> day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IavVtOE_Fg. I still not ready to
> completely agree with him but I do see his point about a language
> getting out a programers way...

I'll watch this, thanks.


Andrei
February 06, 2012
Re: Damn C++ and damn D!
On Sunday, February 05, 2012 15:49:04 so wrote:
> After some time with D, C++ is now a nightmare for me. (especially on
> generic coding)
> Think about replicating this simple code in C++.
> 
> void fun(T)(T a)
> {
>      static if(cond(T))
>      {
>         auto var = make(a);
>      }
>      else
>      {
>         auto tmp = make(a);
>         auto var = make_proxy(tmp);
>      }
>      ...
> }
> 
> And this is just "one" condition.
> Damn D for introducing these and damn C++ committee for not adopting.

So, basically, D does it way better than C++, but you're forced to continue to 
use C++ after seeing how well D does it, and it's driving you crazy. Yeah, 
that happens to me a lot too.

- Jonathan M Davis
February 06, 2012
Re: Damn C++ and damn D!
On 2012-02-05 16:25:33 +0000, Jose Armando Garcia <jsancio@gmail.com> said:

> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>> Make it a function.
> 
> I agree that in theory that you can do all this stuff in D but the
> reality is that developers are lazy and end up fighting the language.

Make it a function literal:

immutable variable = {
	if (boolean_condition)
		return 1
	else
		return 2;
}();

The extra () at the end calls the literal immediately so that variable 
is assigned the result.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
February 06, 2012
Re: Damn C++ and damn D!
Le 06/02/2012 01:09, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
> On Sunday, February 05, 2012 15:49:04 so wrote:
>> After some time with D, C++ is now a nightmare for me. (especially on
>> generic coding)
>> Think about replicating this simple code in C++.
>>
>> void fun(T)(T a)
>> {
>>       static if(cond(T))
>>       {
>>          auto var = make(a);
>>       }
>>       else
>>       {
>>          auto tmp = make(a);
>>          auto var = make_proxy(tmp);
>>       }
>>       ...
>> }
>>
>> And this is just "one" condition.
>> Damn D for introducing these and damn C++ committee for not adopting.
>
> So, basically, D does it way better than C++, but you're forced to continue to
> use C++ after seeing how well D does it, and it's driving you crazy. Yeah,
> that happens to me a lot too.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Hopefully, we have compiler/phobos bugs to force us to get back to C++.
February 10, 2012
Re: Damn C++ and damn D!
lambda instead of macro?

On 02/05/2012 07:57 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 02/05/2012 03:53 PM, so wrote:
>> On Sunday, 5 February 2012 at 14:24:20 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>
>>> This should work:
>>>
>>> #define DOTDOTDOT ...
>>>
>>> template<class T> void fun(T a){
>>> if(cond<T>::value) {
>>> auto var = make(a);
>>> DOTDOTDOT;
>>> }else{
>>> auto tmp = make(a);
>>> auto var = make_proxy(tmp);
>>> DOTDOTDOT;
>>> }
>>> }
>>
>> It won't work.
>> You now have two scopes and you have to repeat every line after "var"
>> for both scopes. Now you have to maintain both of them.
>
> You just maintain the macro.
>
>> And this grows
>> exponentially for every new condition you have.
>>
>
> It certainly has limits. I completely agree that C++s generic
> programming facilities are severely underpowered.
>
February 10, 2012
Re: Damn C++ and damn D!
On 02/10/2012 06:49 PM, Kai Meyer wrote:
> On 02/05/2012 07:57 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 02/05/2012 03:53 PM, so wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 5 February 2012 at 14:24:20 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>
>>>> This should work:
>>>>
>>>> #define DOTDOTDOT ...
>>>>
>>>> template<class T> void fun(T a){
>>>> if(cond<T>::value) {
>>>> auto var = make(a);
>>>> DOTDOTDOT;
>>>> }else{
>>>> auto tmp = make(a);
>>>> auto var = make_proxy(tmp);
>>>> DOTDOTDOT;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>
>>> It won't work.
>>> You now have two scopes and you have to repeat every line after "var"
>>> for both scopes. Now you have to maintain both of them.
>>
>> You just maintain the macro.
>>
>>> And this grows
>>> exponentially for every new condition you have.
>>>
>>
>> It certainly has limits. I completely agree that C++s generic
>> programming facilities are severely underpowered.
>>
>
> lambda instead of macro?
>

Won't work. Or am I missing something?
Next ›   Last »
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home