On 02/05/2013 10:59 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> I prefer to!string to text() because you can use the same to!T pattern
> for a great many types T.

+1

Ali

On 2/5/2013 10:57 AM, Matthew Caron wrote:
> I have a rule - any language which does not have a method by which one can force
> variable predeclaration is a toy and not suitable for real work.

Yeah, autodeclaration is one of those things that gets regularly "invented" by newbies who think the rest of us are idiots for not having thought of it!

Walter Bright:

> Yeah, autodeclaration is one of those things that gets regularly "invented" by newbies who think the rest of us are idiots for not having thought of it!

Still, I prefer to use Python in many situations, like when I design a new algorithm, because it decreases the amount of brain I have to put on the language, freeing more brain to think about the actual problem. Python is a very well designed language.

Bye,
bearophile

On 2/5/2013 11:10 AM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 February 2013 at 19:02:19 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> wtext, dtext
>
> to!int, etc too

toto too!

On Sunday, 3 February 2013 at 13:56:13 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> deadalnix:
>
>>> The code seems to miss the usage of contracts, foreach loops on numerical intervals, final switch, toString with sink, text() function, enum for compile-time constants, most const arguments, const on methods.
>>>
>>
>> My experience tells me that this is probably a good idea if you don't want to run into weirdland.
>
> Among those things I have listed, probably the only ones that give a little of troubles are const on methods.
>
> The author has used asserts at the beginning of methods, outside a the pre-condition, this is silly.

I faced memory corruption in out contract and invariants in the past. So I can't really blame people that don't want to run into such trouble.

On 02/05/2013 09:01 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Walter Bright:
>
>> Yeah, autodeclaration is one of those things that gets regularly
>> "invented" by newbies who think the rest of us are idiots for not
>> having thought of it!
>
> Still, I prefer to use Python in many situations, like when I design a
> new algorithm, because it decreases the amount of brain I have to put on
> the language, freeing more brain to think about the actual problem.
> Python is a very well designed language.

See, I use D for that these days - then I port it to C if there's no D cross compiler for the platform I'm using.


-- 
Matthew Caron, Software Build Engineer
Sixnet, a Red Lion business | www.sixnet.com
+1 (518) 877-5173 x138 office

As she noted in its journal, maybe she give a keynote talk at DConf 2013.
Additionaly, I think it would be great to take an interview with her.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:19 +0000
Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:15:09 +0100
> > "Michael" <pr@m1xa.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Best code, it's which works and the client is satisfied.
> > 
> > And the end users are satisfied. AND doesn't cause problems when it inevitably needs maintenance. And isn't prone to crapping out or breaches of security.
> 
> AND you expect that from ONE, single person who is implementing something like Higgs? :) Come on, be realistic...
> 

Just to be clear, I was replying to the comment about what qualifies as "best" code. I never said anything about *expecting* anything.