"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:apt6ht$2q1d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> A good exercise would be to walk through the "C++??" critique
> >Asuming you agree with all the critisims. And solving all those problems bring practical benefits.
>
> Everyone knows C++ has problems or there would be no D effort in the first
place
> nor Java nor C#.  I would be happy to discuss any particular C++ criticism
with
> which you disagree.  You seem to love the language like an ugly puppy --
just
> because it's yours.

I didnt say i like C/C++, i dont, i use Delphi because of that. What i was saying is that you cant just assume every critisism from the paper is valid. You have to decide which of them are relevant to D.

All of my main dislikes of C/C++ have been fixed in D. There are other things that i would like diferantly but they are the kind of things that you get used to and forget about very quickly.

> The article shows case-by-case how Java and Eiffel address each problem
(or
> don't).  How much more practical can you get.

Yes but it does not adress if they are practical in D. What may be practical in Java/Eiffel may not be in D.

There is not one language that can be alll things to all programers, Java and Eiffel may have diferant philosphies behind the language and so not all of it may be relevant to D

> The practical / academic argument is a false-choice fallacy.  You are
saying
> that only C++-derived or D-newsgroup-inspired design ideas are
"practical," a
> ludicrous position.  We can get pracical ideas from all kinds of sources.

I said nothing of the sort. The people in this newsgroup may be acedemics. I said the process of open discusion availible to anyone is better than a few academics sat round a table. The people in this newsgroup can take inspiration from anywhere they like. They can read the papers you cite.

> >Cant you do it? Its the second time you have sugested somting like this.
>
> A more enthusiastic reception might encourage me.

Less 'D is Doomed' might make people more enthusiastic :)


> >I think you are being unfair.
> >I think Walters is doing great. The diversity of input from this
newsgroup
> >and Walters willingness to engage discusion is going to do far better
than
> >any other method i can think of.
>
> Walter is doing great but can do better.  So can we.  There are more
resources
> to exploit than just our own imaginations.  Using them will get us to the
final
> destination a lot faster.
>
> It saves labor to get things right from a high-level design standpoint --
and
> also creates a better language.  You are missing that point in a big way.

Im not, just because i dont agree with you doesnt mean i missed the point.

> >As walter says it is a language for programers not academics. Thats why
he
> >has this newsgroup full of programers!
>
> There's the false-choice fallacy again.  It's stupidity to ignore the rest
of
> the world.  Anyway, Walter is not doing that to the extent that you claim. Thankfully he does look at languages like Eiffel and Icon, and even hears
a few
> academics.  Thank God we are not his only source of inspiration.

I never claimed he was doing it to any extent. The point is about the diferance between what Academics want from a language and what programers want from it.

A language will suceed if it satisfies the needs of the masses not the few.

> My major point is that D's over-commitment to C++-ness will prohibit the significant gains that would be possible in a breakthrough design.

Yes i think we got that. Mabey people would be more likely to agree if they had more idea of what you mean. Just saying D can be better without specific examples isnt going to win much suport. Write somthing up and post it here? You will get more soapbox time than if you just post links to webpages.

To be honest i dont know what you want diferant. It sounds like almost everything.

> >Given the right airplay and backing i think D will easily take over from C++. simply because the transition from C++ will be fairly painless and
it
> >is 10 times better. Actualy i think Java->D or C#->D should be pretty painless aswell.
>
> Why will companies select D over Java, C#, or Eiffel?  Any of these
languages
> could be called 10 times better than C++.  And all of them enjoy greater
market
> share and maturity than D.

Because they have been finalised and have been around longer. D is still beta isnt it?

The imediate reason why many programers will choose D over Java/C# is it compiles directly and is faster.

I liked Java but it is useless for what i want. You cant write decent windows apps in Java. I need asmebler suport so C# is no use. C# is also useless because of a limitation of the linking of dlls writen in C#.

There are things D has that neither Java/C#/Eiffel have aswell!

> What we need is a language that is many times better than Java / C# /
Eiffel,
> not just many times better than C++.  The only way I see that happening is
to
> loosen the coupling with C++ and seek good ideas from any place we can get
them.
> That is the practical approach.

Yes but are the sacrifices worth it? You are not concerned with speed we know, but many people are, most people who are still using C/C++ and assembler. D is meant for those people aswell. I supose you would happily dump them for the UberLanguage.

chris

Chris I am willing to let you have the last word because we are talking past each other.  You think I am impractical and I think you are impractical, so let's leave it there.  There is too much misreading and mischaracterization of my arguments for me to spend more time on them with you.

Thanks-
Mark

>If you want to take D in a direction away from the C++ direction

I don't, nor do I accept the inference that inputs from other sources will cause such deviation.  Instead they can smooth the roadway for us.


>provide
>some good ideas.  They will probably be taken in and result in a C++
>syntaxical form, however that's a start.

Oh gosh, I have.  Yet even mild syntax improvements are deemed unfit to survive. A rational naming scheme for numeric types was killed.  Now I don't care that my ideas are killed, but I do care why, because that affects everyone's ideas.  In this case it was basically "we want D to read like C++" when the goal should be "we want D to read more cleanly than C++."  This is what I mean about shooting ourselves in the foot over C++-ness.

I've thrown in Icon, Eiffel, the C++?? Critique, and a few other things. Negative indices were shot down.  Oh well.  Walter says there are STL-ish iterators in the works.  I'll keep hope alive.

>I think D has been developed to much for Walter to want to start on it again (and I see no need to).  If D was made radically differnt from it's present form, many of the programs that have already been written wouldn't work, and would need a re-write.

That is not persuasive.  As I just said, even mild ideas (syntax changes to rationalize C++ numeric types) are killed for un-C++-ness.  In such a situation, what you should worry about is not radical change, but overly conservative C++-ness effectively steamrolling many of the wonderful benefits available from a broader design perspective.

OK Walter -- I've worn out my time on this subject.  My views are known and I will leave it there.  I'm sure people will take more potshots but that is the end of it for me.  I still think the world of you and hope the best for D.  I would merely close by cautioning you that this newsgroup population is a small and probably biased sample population, so you should explore discussions with others too.  Thanks Walter!

Good luck,

Mark

Fair enough.

chris


"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:apv23q$2o9f$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Chris I am willing to let you have the last word because we are talking
past
> each other.  You think I am impractical and I think you are impractical,
so
> let's leave it there.  There is too much misreading and
mischaracterization of
> my arguments for me to spend more time on them with you.
>
> Thanks-
> Mark
>
>