On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 13:52:58 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 13:16:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 12:01:31 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 11:13:49 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> This is why Microsoft killed C in their tooling. Unless they
>> change their mind, C++ will be the lowest you can get in a few
>> Visual Studio interactions.
>
> As long as you still can wrap everything in extern "C" {} for mangling purposes and that you have all those standard C headers... it is C++ only by the name.

That is C++ nevertheless. It would be same issue if I present you a D or Objective-C code snippet where the syntax overlaps with the one from C.

As anecdote, back when MS-DOS 5 was the latest version of MS-DOS, I had access to a C++ application composed of plain functions with pure asm bodies in a .cpp files.

--
Paulo

On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 14:16:44 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 13:52:58 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 13:16:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 12:01:31 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 11:13:49 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

> As anecdote, back when MS-DOS 5 was the latest version of

OMG, did those days really exist? I only knew 6.22...

Am 21.06.2013 16:35, schrieb eles:
> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 14:16:44 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 13:52:58 UTC, eles wrote:
>>> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 13:16:07 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 12:01:31 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 11:13:49 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>
>> As anecdote, back when MS-DOS 5 was the latest version of
>
> OMG, did those days really exist? I only knew 6.22...

My first MS-DOS version was 3.3 :)

On 6/21/2013 8:41 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> My first MS-DOS version was 3.3 :)

1.1 here!

On 2013-06-21 14:11, qznc wrote:

> Me too.
>
> The only-thread-local-garbage-collection of Rust is quite interesting in
> my opinion. Since many-cores (e.g. Xeon Phi) are coming, a
> stop-the-world garbage collector might become unacceptable. If this is a
> good solution will be seen (maybe). I certainly do not want D to adopt
> this experimental feature. Let them do the research. ;)

The garbage collector in Mac OS X, which has been around for a while, is a thread-local collector. It contains a global collector as well for the global data.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Am Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:53:13 +0200
schrieb "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com>:

> On Thursday, 20 June 2013 at 20:47:19 UTC, Michael wrote:
> > Also 3 types of pointers scares me.
> 
> This actually doesn't scare me because it is kinda useful for certain situations. However, I don't think it needs to be built into the language because library types can do the same kind of thing.

Yes, once you know about UniquePtr, NotNullable, RefCounted
and such, 3 pointer types isn't scary are all.
But Rust pointers don't map 100% to library types. They have
compiler support which removes the syntactical noise of
templates and makes them behave more natural. For example in D
everything becomes a struct once you add functionality around
it and creates corner cases that aren't supported.
I wonder how many D programmers actually use Phobos' library
pointer types.

-- 
Marco

On Sunday, 23 June 2013 at 15:30:16 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> They have compiler support which removes the syntactical noise of
> templates and makes them behave more natural.

Indeed. I don't mind the syntax (actually, I prefer RefCounted!T to ~T or whatever symbol rust uses) but there's some other things their compiler does like forbid reassigning a refcounted thing if you have a pointer to it still in scope that D can't do in the library.

But the library types can do the bulk of it, and disabling certain problematic parts of the struct helps keep it sane.

> I wonder how many D programmers actually use Phobos' library
> pointer types.

Ironically, I don't, but I do use similar recreations for certain tasks.

On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 12:11:18 UTC, qznc wrote:
> On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 07:04:41 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> As a language geek I think all might have their place.
>
> Me too.
>
> The only-thread-local-garbage-collection of Rust is quite interesting in my opinion. Since many-cores (e.g. Xeon Phi) are coming, a stop-the-world garbage collector might become unacceptable. If this is a good solution will be seen (maybe). I certainly do not want D to adopt this experimental feature. Let them do the research. ;)

That isn't experimental, OCaml does that for ages and it is godamn efficient.

On Sunday, 23 June 2013 at 15:30:16 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
> Am Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:53:13 +0200
> schrieb "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Thursday, 20 June 2013 at 20:47:19 UTC, Michael wrote:
>> > Also 3 types of pointers scares me.
>> 
>> This actually doesn't scare me because it is kinda useful for certain situations. However, I don't think it needs to be built into the language because library types can do the same kind of thing.
>
> Yes, once you know about UniquePtr, NotNullable, RefCounted
> and such, 3 pointer types isn't scary are all.
> But Rust pointers don't map 100% to library types. They have
> compiler support which removes the syntactical noise of
> templates and makes them behave more natural. For example in D
> everything becomes a struct once you add functionality around
> it and creates corner cases that aren't supported.
> I wonder how many D programmers actually use Phobos' library
> pointer types.

We already have pointer and references, that makes 2.

On Friday, 21 June 2013 at 11:13:49 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> It all depends what Mozilla and Samsung do with the language.
>
> If you have powerful entities pushing a language down developers throats, it will get used. That is how many mainstream languages got where they are now.
>
> --
> Paulo


I wonder why hasn't any *big* corp backed up D so far.