> Kris? That would be a surprise. He's one of the most prolific of D programmers
> here, though I know there's certain things about D that displease him...
> 
> I don't think he would interrupt his programming to make such a comment. :)

Ok, i was probably wrong. Or, more correctly, i was just kidding.

My next cadidate would be Shane "TheWolf/TheDog" Loup. Considering that he didn't show up on D channels before, it might be the time he would. :>

-eye

In article <pan.2004.11.14.15.32.49.216097@yahoo.ca>, Ant says...

>I have a different opinion.
>the guy can say what he wants.
>He made only one post with one reasonably fundamented opinion,
>I don't see any problem with that. He also give us an alternative.
>I think his alternative isn't valid at but you know I have a
>problem with MS so I can't realy trust my juggement there.
>He might be motivated by immediate finacial return of any
>work which is a very common thing I notice here in
>north america (Canada).
>
>Most of us don't agree with him, but I respect his opinion.
>D will survive if we can produce better or faster with
>it then with other tools, not for any oher reason.
>
>now the guy might not be honest and he might be posting
>out of fear of D (not likelly at this stage), or any other reason
>but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt
>at least until he start to repeat himself.

No, I disagree.  The structure of that post appears designed to elicit an emotional response.  The anonymity of the post reflects that the person has no desire to offer a traceable opinion or further the discussion of that opinion (has he responded to any of the posts?).  This tells me that the comment content was not important for any reason other than to inspire a reaction.

There's nothing wrong with being to the point on a matter, but I can not admire a post that has

1) no identifiable author
2) takes the form of "[language] is dead, get over it"
3) presents silly, invalid arguments
4) makes no attempt to discuss the perspective

His message here could be better characterized as a "hit and run."  I see no respectability in that.  But that's just an opinion.

- John

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:53:31 +0000, John Reimer wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.11.14.15.32.49.216097@yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
> 
>>I have a different opinion.
>>the guy can say what he wants.

> No, I disagree.  The structure of that post appears designed to elicit an emotional response.

jugging from some replies you're probably right. :(

Ant

> I hope that D will become as popular as C and Java. D is very good
language, it
> came later than C and Java, so it learned from their mistakes. And it is
the
> only language with modern day features (like gc) that is not intepreted
(as far
> as I know).

Both C# and Java are (eventually) compiled into machine code, just like
any compiled program compiled right away with a compiler. C# bytecode is
compiled by a JIT (Just In Time) compiler at load time, Java bytecode is
compiled by the HotSpot system (Sun's implementation, I think IBM's use
JIT),
that will first determine which code needs it most and compile just that
part of the program. This is nice IMO, because the Virtual Machine can take
care of processor optimizations for each platform the program is started on,
rather than the programmer having to compile x versions before shipping.

> The problem of D is that it does not have a megacorporation supporting it
> (C#-Microsoft, Java-Sun).

This may eventually turn out to be an advantage, because nobody claims any copyright on the language definition itself (good move W). The free implementation of the front-end will do a lot of good as well. When the language is good enough, any current compiler provider can just add the front end to their existing compiler. If the language is good enough, and receives enough attention in the press, they will. IMO.

Roald

<wisefriend@hotmail.cx> wrote in message news:cmrfgl$276n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>I think you all might as well take a long, hard look at the truth:  D has no
> future.  There once was a
> language quite similar to D that had all the features one could ask for.  It
> seemed like the perfect
> sytems and application programming language -- high level with the ability to go
> low level when
> necessary.  Oh, it had garbage collection, generics, design by committe... you
> name it.  That language
> was called Modula 3.  It is now dead.  D aims for the exact same space as Modula
> 3, that is to say, D
> aims to hide in one of the many crevices of computer history.  It's sad, really,
> to see such hard work all
> for naught.  You all might as well just give up now and start using C#.
>
> Yours truly,
> A Wise Friend

Why not sign your identity? Otherwise this post just sounds like a bit of pensive petulance, from a coward/ignoramus.

Perhaps you are someone with a huge amount of credibility and relevant experience? Perhaps not.

"John Reimer" <John_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cn8k4r$2u8g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <pan.2004.11.14.15.32.49.216097@yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
>
>>I have a different opinion.
>>the guy can say what he wants.
>>He made only one post with one reasonably fundamented opinion,
>>I don't see any problem with that. He also give us an alternative.
>>I think his alternative isn't valid at but you know I have a
>>problem with MS so I can't realy trust my juggement there.
>>He might be motivated by immediate finacial return of any
>>work which is a very common thing I notice here in
>>north america (Canada).
>>
>>Most of us don't agree with him, but I respect his opinion.
>>D will survive if we can produce better or faster with
>>it then with other tools, not for any oher reason.
>>
>>now the guy might not be honest and he might be posting
>>out of fear of D (not likelly at this stage), or any other reason
>>but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt
>>at least until he start to repeat himself.
>
> No, I disagree.  The structure of that post appears designed to elicit an emotional response.  The anonymity of the post reflects that the person has no desire to offer a traceable opinion or further the discussion of that opinion (has he responded to any of the posts?).  This tells me that the comment content was not important for any reason other than to inspire a reaction.
>
> There's nothing wrong with being to the point on a matter, but I can not admire a post that has
>
> 1) no identifiable author
> 2) takes the form of "[language] is dead, get over it"
> 3) presents silly, invalid arguments
> 4) makes no attempt to discuss the perspective
>
> His message here could be better characterized as a "hit and run."  I see no respectability in that.  But that's just an opinion.

It could even be a serious member of the D community, intending to firm us all up in our commitment by reverse psychology. Maybe it was Walter? ;)

Matthew wrote:
> "John Reimer" <John_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cn8k4r$2u8g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>In article <pan.2004.11.14.15.32.49.216097@yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
>>
>>
>>>I have a different opinion.
>>>the guy can say what he wants.
>>>He made only one post with one reasonably fundamented opinion,
>>>I don't see any problem with that. He also give us an alternative.
>>>I think his alternative isn't valid at but you know I have a
>>>problem with MS so I can't realy trust my juggement there.
>>>He might be motivated by immediate finacial return of any
>>>work which is a very common thing I notice here in
>>>north america (Canada).
>>>
>>>Most of us don't agree with him, but I respect his opinion.
>>>D will survive if we can produce better or faster with
>>>it then with other tools, not for any oher reason.
>>>
>>>now the guy might not be honest and he might be posting
>>>out of fear of D (not likelly at this stage), or any other reason
>>>but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt
>>>at least until he start to repeat himself.
>>
>>No, I disagree.  The structure of that post appears designed to elicit an
>>emotional response.  The anonymity of the post reflects that the person has no
>>desire to offer a traceable opinion or further the discussion of that opinion
>>(has he responded to any of the posts?).  This tells me that the comment content
>>was not important for any reason other than to inspire a reaction.
>>
>>There's nothing wrong with being to the point on a matter, but I can not admire
>>a post that has
>>
>>1) no identifiable author
>>2) takes the form of "[language] is dead, get over it"
>>3) presents silly, invalid arguments
>>4) makes no attempt to discuss the perspective
>>
>>His message here could be better characterized as a "hit and run."  I see no
>>respectability in that.  But that's just an opinion.
> 
> 
> It could even be a serious member of the D community, intending to firm us all up in our commitment by reverse psychology. Maybe it was Walter? ;)
> 
> 
> 

He he... True.

By the way, Matthew, it looks like you have a LOT of catching up to do!

:-D

Matthew wrote:
> "John Reimer" <John_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cn8k4r$2u8g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>In article <pan.2004.11.14.15.32.49.216097@yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
[... ... ...]
> It could even be a serious member of the D community, intending to firm us all up in our commitment by reverse psychology. Maybe it was Walter? ;)

LOL

Anyhow, on an electronic forum without compulsory identification, who cares about a signature anyhow?? Instead of spending kilobytes of bandwidth on figuring out who, or what motives he might have, we should honor every post as potentially written with "good intent" -- however provocative they might be on the surface. If somebody sees the effort to write us here, then a reasonable default attitude would be to assume he/she actually is here to forward the "D cause". Like "innocent till proven guilty". Right?

Hell, the last thing we need is everybody first looking at who signed, and then forming an attitude towards the contribution before we read it.

Suppose somebody came forward and offered to tell us which aliases here are used by Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds and Larry Ellison. I personally would pay him for _not_ telling. It's the content that counts.