Hmm. Perhaps not the description I would have made of it ...


"Francis Glassborow" <francis.glassborow@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:1WmYxPCOeCN$EwKz@robinton.demon.co.uk...
> In message <d1a33011.0308080013.6df518ac@posting.google.com>, apm <apm35@student.open.ac.uk> writes
> >Has anyone here come across the D language
> >by Walter Bright (author of the Zortech compiler)?
> >The spec makes it seem quite good to me.
> >Surely some other C++ers have taken a look?
> >I realise that this is slightly OT. If there
> >is a more apropriate NG for this then I would
> >like to know what it is (please).
>
> You mean like the forum provided for it by Digital Mars? :-)
>
> I think the very last thing that the World needs is another languages that is syntactically hard to distinguish from C++ whilst having different semantics. It looks awfully like a language in which the designers have thrown in everything but the kitchen sink.
>
> It isn't C++ and cannot compile C++ code. However I wonder if it plagiarises too much, not just the ideas but the expression of those ideas.
>
>
>
> -- 
> ACCU Spring Conference 2003 April 2-5
> The Conference you should not have missed
> ACCU Spring Conference 2004 Late April
> Francis Glassborow      ACCU
>
>
>
>       [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
>       [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bh1ing$sur$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Hmm. Perhaps not the description I would have made of it ...

True. But it's understandable that the first impression C++ experts might have of D would be along the lines of who needs it. It's the second and third impressions that really matter in the long term.

Indeed.

It's also true that C++ "experts" are about the unfriendliest in the business.

I think this is because it is actually impossible to be expert in C++, given its massive conceptual universe of discourse, and so folks who cannot handle always being in a state of ignorance seek to deny it by denying anything outside their sphere of expertise. This has the consequence of their dismissing things out of emotion (read fear!), which eventually becomes a habit.

I know this to be true in at least one (repeated) case, as I've gone through the "it's pointless/it'll never catch on" phase myself numerous times including, amusingly, thinking STL was a flash in the pan. ;)

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bh21r9$1a2l$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bh1ing$sur$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Hmm. Perhaps not the description I would have made of it ...
>
> True. But it's understandable that the first impression C++ experts might have of D would be along the lines of who needs it. It's the second and third impressions that really matter in the long term.
>
>

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bh22dc$1agl$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Indeed.
>
> It's also true that C++ "experts" are about the unfriendliest in the business.
>
> I think this is because it is actually impossible to be expert in C++,
given
> its massive conceptual universe of discourse, and so folks who cannot
handle
> always being in a state of ignorance seek to deny it by denying anything outside their sphere of expertise. This has the consequence of their dismissing things out of emotion (read fear!), which eventually becomes a habit.
>
> I know this to be true in at least one (repeated) case, as I've gone
through
> the "it's pointless/it'll never catch on" phase myself numerous times including, amusingly, thinking STL was a flash in the pan. ;)

You're so right, since I've done that myself <g>.

The irony of it all is, though, when I do actually force myself to learn something I'd been avoiding, my reaction afterwards is something along the lines of "is that all there is to it?"

And then there's things like plumbing. I tell myself "how hard can this be?" And then the flooding starts...

>> I think the very last thing that the World needs is another languages that is syntactically hard to distinguish from C++ whilst having different semantics.

Kind of a ridiculous statement since Java and C# went there first in many ways. It's pretty obvious that the C/C++ syntax style languages have become more popular than other good languages like Eiffel and Ada which use a Pascal-like syntax, so why would Walter do it any different.

I do wish he followed more of the Java style keywords like "extends" and "implements" but it's probably too late now for that change.

In article <bh2ne0$22cq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark T says...
>
>>> I think the very last thing that the World needs is another languages that is syntactically hard to distinguish from C++ whilst having different semantics.
>
>Kind of a ridiculous statement since Java and C# went there first in many ways. It's pretty obvious that the C/C++ syntax style languages have become more popular than other good languages like Eiffel and Ada which use a Pascal-like syntax, so why would Walter do it any different.
>
>I do wish he followed more of the Java style keywords like "extends" and "implements" but it's probably too late now for that change.

Why is it too late?
Surely the point of this forum is to propose and discuss such changes.
For all we know this might have been a simple oversight.
I agree that moving towards a state where much of new language syntax is shared
is a good thing.

Regards,

Andrew Marlow