I enjoyed reading that :)

chris

"Robert W. Cunningham" <FlyPG@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:3DB1AB57.C9E17628@users.sourceforge.net...
>
> Imagine C is like some corrosive gas that has permeated just about every crevice of our programming world.  Programmers breathe this gas on a daily basis, and find that they are very productive while breathing it, despite its corrosive nature.
>
> Everyone complains about the detrimental effects of this gas, yet it keeps getting used and it does its job well.  Some have tried switching to other gasses, and while far less corrosive, these gasses are harder to breathe for those brought up breathing the "C" gas.
>
> Only a relatively small number are able to switch to any of these new gasses.
>
> Some of the new gasses are like Helium, and those who breathe it acquire high, shrill voices that annoy everyone else.  Then they pass out. Other new gasses are like Nitrous Oxide, and those who breathe it laugh at the rest of us, but get nothing useful done.
>
> Rather than be totally different, some gasses are modifications of the "C" gas, but they became even more corrosive than the "C" gas ever was!
>
> What is the corrosive "C" gas?  I'm thinking it is like Oxygen, able to turn iron to rust, yet also able to power Life.  C++ is like Ozone: We need it too, but it is more corrosive than Oxygen, and it also seems to have some large holes in it.
>
> We may never be able to get rid of our need for Oxygen, but it is clear that something better is needed, and it is equally clear that the new gas should be close to Oxygen, but not emulate the hazards of Ozone.
>
> D is not trying to be the ultimate thing:  It is merely trying to be a step in the right direction, where the direction of choice is toward ease of learning (especially for C programmers), power of use, speed of execution and simple compilation.
>
> I can't think of a specific "gas" to compare to D.  But even at this early stage, I know it is easier to breathe than C/C++ in most, but not all, situations.
>
> What I'm looking for, and what Walter is creating, is a powerful change for the better, not something too different or alien.  Maximum gain for minimum pain.
>
> Once D is decades old, we may be ready to move on to something else, something that leaves C/C++ further behind.  But not quite yet.
>
>
> -BobC

Parhaps this is good enough, for the D journal option page?

"Robert W. Cunningham" <FlyPG@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:3DB1AB57.C9E17628@users.sourceforge.net...
> Mark Evans wrote:
> > ...
> > Walter wrote:
> > > The trouble with Eiffel (for me, anyway)
> > > is its syntax. What can I say, I just don't like it.
> >
> > Remarkable!  We've all been doing too much C/C++ to see clearly the
syntactical
> > flaws of C.  C/C++ syntax is notoriously cryptic, yet the D project is
so overly
> > committed to C that even something as harmless as the use of good names
for
> > basic data types is thought impossible.
> > ...
>
> Imagine C is like some corrosive gas that has permeated just about every crevice of our programming world.  Programmers breathe this gas on a daily basis, and find that they are very productive while breathing it, despite its corrosive nature.
>
> Everyone complains about the detrimental effects of this gas, yet it keeps getting used and it does its job well.  Some have tried switching to other gasses, and while far less corrosive, these gasses are harder to breathe for those brought up breathing the "C" gas.
>
> Only a relatively small number are able to switch to any of these new gasses.
>
> Some of the new gasses are like Helium, and those who breathe it acquire high, shrill voices that annoy everyone else.  Then they pass out. Other new gasses are like Nitrous Oxide, and those who breathe it laugh at the rest of us, but get nothing useful done.
>
> Rather than be totally different, some gasses are modifications of the "C" gas, but they became even more corrosive than the "C" gas ever was!
>
> What is the corrosive "C" gas?  I'm thinking it is like Oxygen, able to turn iron to rust, yet also able to power Life.  C++ is like Ozone: We need it too, but it is more corrosive than Oxygen, and it also seems to have some large holes in it.
>
> We may never be able to get rid of our need for Oxygen, but it is clear that something better is needed, and it is equally clear that the new gas should be close to Oxygen, but not emulate the hazards of Ozone.
>
> D is not trying to be the ultimate thing:  It is merely trying to be a step in the right direction, where the direction of choice is toward ease of learning (especially for C programmers), power of use, speed of execution and simple compilation.
>
> I can't think of a specific "gas" to compare to D.  But even at this early stage, I know it is easier to breathe than C/C++ in most, but not all, situations.
>
> What I'm looking for, and what Walter is creating, is a powerful change for the better, not something too different or alien.  Maximum gain for minimum pain.
>
> Once D is decades old, we may be ready to move on to something else, something that leaves C/C++ further behind.  But not quite yet.
>
>
> -BobC

If I were to draw a gas analogy it would be a dying old man on an oxygen tank. C/C++ is the dying old man and D is the oxygen tank.  It would be better to get rid of the smog and cigarettes in the first place, so that people don't grow old prematurely.  Clean language design is like a storm front that blows all the bad stuff away.

All competent software engineers know a variety of languages and are able to learn new ones quickly.  Those viewing C++ as some kind of comfort zone just haven't spent enough time in other languages to understand the dramatic gains that are available from superior syntax and expressiveness.

Mark

Roberts analogy was a great deal fairer. By your analogy D isnt even part of the solution.

I dont even think you want is what D is suposed to be. From the 'Overview' D is clearly meant to be a pragmatic language, you always seem to be putting the idealistic argument.

chris

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:aovdpb$2fr5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> If I were to draw a gas analogy it would be a dying old man on an oxygen
tank.
> C/C++ is the dying old man and D is the oxygen tank.  It would be better
to get
> rid of the smog and cigarettes in the first place, so that people don't
grow old
> prematurely.  Clean language design is like a storm front that blows all
the bad
> stuff away.
>
> All competent software engineers know a variety of languages and are able
to
> learn new ones quickly.  Those viewing C++ as some kind of comfort zone
just
> haven't spent enough time in other languages to understand the dramatic
gains
> that are available from superior syntax and expressiveness.
>
> Mark
>
>

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:aovdpb$2fr5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> If I were to draw a gas analogy it would be a dying old man on an oxygen
tank.
> C/C++ is the dying old man and D is the oxygen tank.  It would be better
to get
> rid of the smog and cigarettes in the first place, so that people don't
grow old
> prematurely.  Clean language design is like a storm front that blows all
the bad
> stuff away.
>
> All competent software engineers know a variety of languages and are able
to
> learn new ones quickly.  Those viewing C++ as some kind of comfort zone
just
> haven't spent enough time in other languages to understand the dramatic
gains
> that are available from superior syntax and expressiveness.
>
> Mark
>

The point is that C/C++ are the most used program languages in the world. Of all it's cons, there must be something right in the languages otherwise they wouldn't be used.  Just like windows, allot of people say they don't like it, but it's the most popular PC OS.

I think the major thing C/C++ has going for it is that everything connects into it (even Eiffel).  While Eiffel gains all the conectivity that C++ has by connecting to it, it's a two step proccess (which may result in some C++ coding).

I have used a variety of other languages (Eiffel, basic, Ada, java, pascal, prolog ect...)  but they just don't enjoy the level of support C++ does. Even most persuado code is C syntax.  Go for a job and what do they want? Someone who knows C/C++ (java or C#), most D programmers can do that.

The only reason I'm changing over to D is because it's like C/C++, and has the chance to take off like C (as did C# and java).  In learning D I have access to the huge database of support C++ provides, and if it takes off, D will also have it's own legacy database.  How many failed "so called good" languages are there now?  Otherwise I'd use Eiffel (or some other popular non-C++ language).

I think the name D indicates that it in the C family and an improvement. It would have to be called something like Eiffel++ if it was to use Eiffel syntax (or a different name if not using C syntax).

Even the great Walter himself choose C to create D and probably would have used D if it had been avaliable at the time ;)

Perhaps were just all old hacks following the crowd, but the biggest crowds have the biggest support.

I believe there is room for both pragmatism and idealism in a language. There's nothing that says a language can't be both high, medium, and low level.

I think the ideal language wouldn't need a scripting "high end" or a fast "low end" such as C.  Asm you can't escape from but is inherently platform specific so a builtin assembler and language support for detecting target and using the right assembly function is needed.

I tend to throw ideas out without thinking them through enough, so I guess I tend to clutter the language.  Not that my ideas are all that novel.

I should probably lurk more.

Sean

"chris jones" <flak@clara.co.uk> wrote in message news:aovmbm$2nm1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Roberts analogy was a great deal fairer. By your analogy D isnt even part
of
> the solution.
>
> I dont even think you want is what D is suposed to be. From the 'Overview'
D
> is clearly meant to be a pragmatic language, you always seem to be putting the idealistic argument.
>
> chris

That is both a blessing and a curse though.  Sure, deriving from C ties into the vast pool of support C has.  But it also feels alot like a manacle that you can't escape from.

My opinion on Eiffel is that it has a lot of good concepts but needs a drastic syntax overhaul to be accepted by most programmers.  It seems overly wordy.  Too many reserved words, and too much required use of them. Terseness to me is a measure of expressive power.  Look at math;  very terse, yet extremely flexible and powerful.

I'm so frustrated with languages at the moment.  I can't even find a good language in which to start a compiler project.  ;(

I was going to use D, but it's still pretty early and changing alot and I find the tool support to be a problem.  So I started learning C# by writing a compiler.  Something still feels wrong about C# however.  It doesn't have great array handling support (not quite as much as D has anyway) and the lack of generics is a problem (can't easily do typed collections).  The string support is ok.  It's hard to get excited about C# though.  At least it has good debugger support.

It doesn't appear that MS has made it very easy to add new languages into Visual Studio .NET, either.  I was looking toward integrating it briefly last night.

Sean

"anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> wrote in message news:aovnk7$2p1s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The point is that C/C++ are the most used program languages in the world. Of all it's cons, there must be something right in the languages otherwise they wouldn't be used.  Just like windows, allot of people say they don't like it, but it's the most popular PC OS.
>
> I think the major thing C/C++ has going for it is that everything connects into it (even Eiffel).  While Eiffel gains all the conectivity that C++
has
> by connecting to it, it's a two step proccess (which may result in some
C++
> coding).
>
> I have used a variety of other languages (Eiffel, basic, Ada, java,
pascal,
> prolog ect...)  but they just don't enjoy the level of support C++ does. Even most persuado code is C syntax.  Go for a job and what do they want? Someone who knows C/C++ (java or C#), most D programmers can do that.
>
> The only reason I'm changing over to D is because it's like C/C++, and has the chance to take off like C (as did C# and java).  In learning D I have access to the huge database of support C++ provides, and if it takes off,
D
> will also have it's own legacy database.  How many failed "so called good" languages are there now?  Otherwise I'd use Eiffel (or some other popular non-C++ language).
>
> I think the name D indicates that it in the C family and an improvement.
It
> would have to be called something like Eiffel++ if it was to use Eiffel syntax (or a different name if not using C syntax).
>
> Even the great Walter himself choose C to create D and probably would have used D if it had been avaliable at the time ;)
>
> Perhaps were just all old hacks following the crowd, but the biggest
crowds
> have the biggest support.
>
>

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:aoq44v$452$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> But how do you as author see the two languages differing from each
other -- in
> philosophy or technical capabilities?  Put another way, why use D instead
of
> Eiffel?
>
> You don't need comparisons with every language on earth, just those that
served
> as inspiration, and bear a resemblance to D.  C++ and Eiffel are D's next
of
> kin.
>
> These comparisons belong in the D write-ups.  Reading the D web pages
leaves the
> impression that C++ was the only source of inspiration and the only
similar
> language.

I don't know enough about Eiffel to do an intelligent comparison.

"anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> wrote in message news:aojcob$26m8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> D's more like Godel (pronounced go da hell).
> * Left to bleed when the grant money ran out.

There never was any grant money for D to begin with <g>.

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:aoqfbb$ebk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
> >> Between these two sources of inspiration I think D can strike a nice balance in its target domain.
> > I think D already does that, though obviously you think it doesn't go
far
> > enough.
> What I think is that C/C++ has too much influence on the design relative
to
> other languages.

D is designed to be an evolutionary successor to C/C++, and so necessarilly will look a lot like them. It is designed to appeal to C/C++ programmers and minimize the learning curve to jump from them to D. If that were not true, not many people would even give D a chance.