"OddesE" <OddesE_XYZ@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ab6lvs$2qp5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I can go along in this. Adding ints to chars is in my
> opinion not a normal operation, but maybe that is
> because of the kind of code I write.
> I was happy to learn that D defined a separate type
> for byte and ubyte, instead of mixing it with char
> like C does, like chars and bytes have anything to
> do with each other conceptually...

Doing that makes it nice for overloading.

"Stephen Fuld" <s.fuld.pleaseremove@att.net> wrote in message news:ab92qn$213l$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:ab426p$310j$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Yes, it is. But remember I came to C from Pascal (I actually wrote a mini-Pascal compiler once), and never looked back.
> Can you discuss why?

Because it seemed I was always fighting the compiler in Pascal. With C, I was able to get around the typing system when I needed to. I might point out that no Pascal compiler was ever successful without a boatload of extensions. This was not true of C.

In D, for every bit of safety the language gives you, you can get around it if you must.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:abfovc$1q9q$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Stephen Fuld" <s.fuld.pleaseremove@att.net> wrote in message news:ab92qn$213l$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:ab426p$310j$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > Yes, it is. But remember I came to C from Pascal (I actually wrote a mini-Pascal compiler once), and never looked back.
> > Can you discuss why?
>
> Because it seemed I was always fighting the compiler in Pascal. With C, I was able to get around the typing system when I needed to. I might point
out
> that no Pascal compiler was ever successful without a boatload of extensions. This was not true of C.
>
> In D, for every bit of safety the language gives you, you can get around
it
> if you must.
>

Yes, Pascal doesn't give you enough freedom, but IMHO C gives you far too much.  That is why I like Turning (Pascal with more freedom when you need it) and D (eliminates so of C's problems but still lets you get the job done).  Both are "in between" Pascal and C, Turing being closer to Pascal, D being closer to C.

--
 - Stephen Fuld
   e-mail address disguised to prevent spam