I read phobos library sources.... D is portability.... for Windows or Linux.... bleah.... portability ?

And what at BSD, SunOS... other UNIX-Systems... and general others system. ?

portable code for linux is not portable ;ppp

when will be dmd portable ?

I don't understand chapter "The C Preprocessor vs D"

Why you compare MACRO to functions and constant variables ?, this are different things


..?

ziomus wrote:
> I read phobos library sources.... D is portability.... for Windows or Linux....
> bleah.... portability ? 
> 
> And what at BSD, SunOS... other UNIX-Systems... and general others system. ?

We've got a (currently defunct) project to bind the front-end to GCC or output compilable C or C++ code. Then we'll be very portable.

The only library part hindering portability at large i'm aware of is a GC. Some other parts will probably requiere bugfixing after there's a cross-platform compiler. :)

> portable code for linux is not portable ;ppp
> 
> when will be dmd portable ?

As soon as some people join in which have enough time and skill to do something, and actually come to write it. You won't be alone, you've got experienced Jan Knepper on your side, who is quite busy, and probably also undermotivated by the lack of people who'd help.

I first considered helping, but now i think i don't like D that much after all.

> I don't understand chapter "The C Preprocessor vs D"

What don't you understand specifically? D doesn't include a C-like preprocessor. This chapter explains, how you can solve the tasks in D, for which you use a preprocessor in C.

> Why you compare MACRO to functions and constant variables ?, this are different
> things

Hopefully yes. :) but when developing in C, you are often forced to emulate constants and lightweight functions through macros, which is... well, you answer your own question. :)

-i.

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub@8ung.at> wrote in message news:bgjbkv$2l4m$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> I first considered helping, but now i think i don't like D that much after all.
>

Just curious as to what you don't like about it?

Rich C.

Rich C wrote:
> Just curious as to what you don't like about it?

Oh, there's enough to it.

First, i *hate* C syntax. Second, as i ran over D, i have cut myself hard on C, and was afraid to learn C++. D is much easier.

Now, that i've learned C++, the need in D is not that major.

Besides, i have discovered Sather, which has a syntax i like, as well as a sane semantics, which is gorgeous. :) It has not only much more theoretical beauty, it feels also very simple, natural and convenient, without sharp corners.

Like, take OCaml. A magnificcent language, but overcomplicated and *with* sharp semantic corners. And a horrible syntax, which implies hundreds of operators and wild name disambiguation. Another example with sharp corners is a paranoid Eiffel. Though seemingly similar to Sather, it's actually not.

So, don't let me hold you back from using D.

-i.

> Besides, i have discovered Sather, which has a syntax i like, as well as a sane semantics, which is gorgeous. :) It has not only much more theoretical beauty, it feels also very simple, natural and convenient, without sharp corners.

I looked through the Sather docs sometime back, and although I do argee with
you view on Sather to me it suffers from the fault as Delphi ... great
features, 90% of the syntax is good but lack the symbolic short cuts and has
different use of ';'
I like the C `if`  (prefer the perl `if <bool><block>[<elseif/else>]`|
<statement> if <bool> )
I always got driven mad by if <bool> then <stat> else <stat> ';'
and resorted to begin and end with every if delphi code.

don't you miss a++ and b += foo; etc ?

D is currently better than C.

That isn't saying much.  Alot of it is unfinished, either in design or implementation.  It still lacks polish and a certain amount of elegance. There are certain points in the language design that I don't think are ever going to be resolved to my satisfaction either because of irrational backward compatibility with C or that Walter and I just don't see eye to eye on many issues.  ;)

I don't think D is ready for prime time yet.  The core language design still needs work.  The primary implementation is missing several language features.  There needs to be more implementations or at least a GCC frontend for D.

D has great potential, but for now, I have to use C++.

There are languages coming out that are better, but none that "have it all", so to speak, and so I can't really switch to them either.

I agree with you Ilya about OCaml.  It could be a great language, but I think it was designed by crazed Frenchmen;  it's a really alien feeling language to people used to C++.  It seems complicated, and relies much on convention for naming of conversions and print methods.  I really dislike the syntax.

Sather is better in many ways but still don't like it.  It's just a gut reaction;  maybe I can overcome it.

I wish one of the array languages like Nial would get popular or merge somehow with one of the good functional languages.  ;)

Sean

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub@8ung.at> wrote in message news:bglnqq$1o8p$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Rich C wrote:
> > Just curious as to what you don't like about it?
>
> Oh, there's enough to it.
>
> First, i *hate* C syntax. Second, as i ran over D, i have cut myself hard on C, and was afraid to learn C++. D is much easier.
>
> Now, that i've learned C++, the need in D is not that major.
>
> Besides, i have discovered Sather, which has a syntax i like, as well as a sane semantics, which is gorgeous. :) It has not only much more theoretical beauty, it feels also very simple, natural and convenient, without sharp corners.
>
> Like, take OCaml. A magnificcent language, but overcomplicated and *with* sharp semantic corners. And a horrible syntax, which implies hundreds of operators and wild name disambiguation. Another example with sharp corners is a paranoid Eiffel. Though seemingly similar to Sather, it's actually not.
>
> So, don't let me hold you back from using D.
>
> -i.

Ilya Minkov wrote:
> Rich C wrote:
> 
>> Just curious as to what you don't like about it?
> 
> 
> Oh, there's enough to it.
> 
> First, i *hate* C syntax. Second, as i ran over D, i have cut myself hard on C, and was afraid to learn C++. D is much easier.
> 

I've been using C/C++ since around '84. Anything that kind of
like C/C++ is out of my comfort zone, except assembly, which
I like, but don't need so much.

D works for me because it is essentially a modernization of C/C++,
with a new OO foundation. Also, since it is more of an open source
effort, with a minimal footprint (unlike C# and Java), I can hope
that no one will be as able to turn it into some kind of monster
language (again, like C++, C#, and Java).

I can look forward for writing my own libraries, or using others
that are developed as open source software, and can refine
everything as much as I want for my own use. It's a language that
I can "own", rather than getting "owned" by some corporation
because I bought into their tools. I imagine that this is the
general case for many others using D. It's also the reason I
am doing all I can to use *BSD and Linux.

Frank Wills wrote:
> Ilya Minkov wrote:
> 
>> Rich C wrote:
>>
>>> Just curious as to what you don't like about it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, there's enough to it.
>>
>> First, i *hate* C syntax. Second, as i ran over D, i have cut myself hard on C, and was afraid to learn C++. D is much easier.
>>
> 
> I've been using C/C++ since around '84. Anything that kind of
> like C/C++ is out of my comfort zone, except assembly, which
> I like, but don't need so much.

correction: Anything that _isn't_ kind of like C/C++ is out of
my comfort zone.

>I agree with you Ilya about OCaml.  It could be a great language, but I think it was designed by crazed Frenchmen;  it's a really alien feeling language to people used to C++

Counterarguments: http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200104/msg00013.html http://caml.inria.fr/caml-list/1542.html

Sean L. Palmer wrote:

> I agree with you Ilya about OCaml.  It could be a great language, but I
> think it was designed by crazed Frenchmen;  it's a really alien feeling
> language to people used to C++.  It seems complicated, and relies much on
> convention for naming of conversions and print methods.  I really dislike
> the syntax.

It simply coudn't be different, else it wouldn't be OCaml. :) And it has nothing to do with crazy frenchmen, since i don't appear to know any frenchman to use OCaml. :) Though some to use C++.

And the problem is not with the syntax itself - the tokens and their order can be changed. It's in the semantics. For global type infererence to work, all names have to be disambiguated -- and that refers not only to identifiers, but also to operators. Every datatype defines its own set of operators. A reference defines its own special kind of assignment... and so on. And i'm just not ready to take time to study deeply another language, which is not even a bit less complex than C++.

It's a peak (one of the possible peaks) of what a functional language can reach, and it's impressiing. But it's so complex... so that when i'd have to decide between C++ and OCaml, i'd still and alwas choose C++, which is at least widely used. And with all the advantage which follows it. Including somewhat crazy but experienced frenchmen giving me tips on my personal projects. :) Well, it's probably not very realistic, but the libraries on my hands are.

> Sather is better in many ways but still don't like it.  It's just a gut
> reaction;  maybe I can overcome it.

It took me some time to realise that OCaml is an interesting and powerful language. :) However, i still wouldn't like to get acquainted with it any further.

> I wish one of the array languages like Nial would get popular or merge
> somehow with one of the good functional languages.  ;)

Hm... There are still so many languages i haven't heard of... dispite Mark always dropping a link, and myself always following them.

-i.

P.S.

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~damian/papers/
Human factors in programming languages.