That'd be great.

However, in my somewhat limited experience, Mac are about the least helpful and open company I've come across: in my writing and STLSoft (and other) projects I've had help from most of the big companies, but Mac totally ignored any approaches and have shown no interest whatsoever. Their loss, I guess, and I'm sure this lack of care about publicity (potentially good publicity, anyway) has got nothing to do with their preeminent position in the computer industry today. :/


-- 
Matthew Wilson

STLSoft moderator and C++ monomaniac       (http://www.stlsoft.org)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
(www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)

"You can tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much!" -- Uncle Michael

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---


<jhenzie@mac.com> wrote in message news:bl2k90$2tkd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Keep it to D boys otherwise I am going to have to get on my OS X soap box,
oops
> slipped.
>
> Actually as an aside I think OS X is a great target for D and here's why.
>
> THe CARBON API is C based making it absolutely suitable for D.  The
'Modern'
> application frameworks use Objective-C.  A phenominal language that is
used by
> Apple and GNUStep. [Objective-c retain].
>
> Many of the die-hard mac people, that is not NeXT, are very wary of
Objective-C,
> poor souls, and are continuing to develop C/C++ based Apps.  From my
limited
> experience with D I believe it can match the performance of C++ and
eclipse the
> performance of COCOA java and Objective-C.
>
> From that perspective if it was runing on the platform someone at Apple
might be
> persuaded to build a small CARBON / Core foundation application in D to
show to
> Avie and Steve.
>
> Faced with a small, fast, somwhat dynamic, language that simplifies
development,
> offers many of the advantages of java, at least form Apple application development perpective, without the overhead and startup cost may be of
great
> interest to a company know for its innovation and its penchant for bucking
the
> trend.
>
> Anyway back to the real world.
>
> In article <bl26r6$2b0o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Charles Hixson says...
> >
> >Charles Sanders wrote:
> >> win2k with cygwin == awesome.  I still keep a linux box around but for
a
> >> desktop win2k has won my heart ;)
> >>
> >> Charles
> >> ...
> >
> >Please read the EULA.  I don't for certain know that the win2k EULA is unlivewithable, but I've seen snippets of the XP?  XT? version, and I won't allow it in my home.  And I've seen representations that some of the security patches came with clauses that retrofitted the win2k license to be just as bad.
> >
> >The EULA is my original reason for fleeing MSWindows.  It took me six months before I had a useable system (this was a few years ago), and I still considered it time well spent.  These days...I'll generally reccommend that you hire someone else if you want work done with MS.  And I surely won't install it.  (Well, I can accept the Win95 and Win98 licenses.  They're not too bad.)
> >
> >Sometimes technical slickness doesn't suffice.  Fortunately, MS is losing out even on that end.  (If you don't think so, check our a system configured to look like a MSWind system...Linux does it without any problem.  But most people don't care for the costs over more than the short term.  [You might look at a Lycoris box, or a Xandros one...their software tends to be a bit behind the curve, but their graphics make you think it's windows {this is a plus?}.])
> >
> >
> >
>
>

See all, hear all, say nowt.

Eat all, drink all, pay nowt

and if ever tha' does owt for nowt, allus do it for thisen

Apple can be tough to approach, they have some incredible engineers, Steve
Nairoff. and Avie T for
example.  But put a bunch of brilliant people together and you tend to end up
with a fairly
abrasive, some might say, arrogant persona.

With regard to STLSoft, you have to accept certain fundamentals about apple.
C++ is not really
their bag, C and Objective-C for the most part, C++ has its place and advocates
in the company
but to my mind they think of it as a language they have to support, thus  C++ is
not really going
to appeal to them although there are some rumblings. <smile/>, don't take it
personally.

With D that might be different, especially as its something they know little or
nothing about,
particulally if it can be demostrated that D provides the developer productivity
of Java and C# with
the speed and flexibility of C++, they could be a phenominal ally in developing
this beast,
particulally woth regards to GCC on PPC.

Clearly windows and linux are the core platforms, but to restrict the language
to x86 guarantees
that it will never reach its full potential.  PPC and Sparc are the obvious
choices and Apple is the
type of company that would appreciate the capabilities of D.

Its a tough time for a new language, mediocre engineers and outsourcing have
made Java and C#
extremely popular.  For D to be successful it needs to not only compete with
Java and C# but blow
them away. My limited exposure makes me think that it can, especially if it can
avoid bloat.
Finding opportunities that let D shine are key.  Apple has a phenoinal but non
mainstream languge
in Objective-C.  Java is a poor substitute but is improving, legions of Mac
Developers are
accustomed to C++, give them something that is not too unfamiliar but enhances
their
productivity and you have found your niche.

Cheers

Justin

In article <bl3609$j9p$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
>
>That'd be great.
>
>However, in my somewhat limited experience, Mac are about the least helpful and open company I've come across: in my writing and STLSoft (and other) projects I've had help from most of the big companies, but Mac totally ignored any approaches and have shown no interest whatsoever. Their loss, I guess, and I'm sure this lack of care about publicity (potentially good publicity, anyway) has got nothing to do with their preeminent position in the computer industry today. :/
>
>
>-- 
>Matthew Wilson
>
>STLSoft moderator and C++ monomaniac       (http://www.stlsoft.org)
>Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
>(www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
>
>"You can tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much!" -- Uncle Michael
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>
>
><jhenzie@mac.com> wrote in message news:bl2k90$2tkd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Keep it to D boys otherwise I am going to have to get on my OS X soap box,
>oops
>> slipped.
>>
>> Actually as an aside I think OS X is a great target for D and here's why.
>>
>> THe CARBON API is C based making it absolutely suitable for D.  The
>'Modern'
>> application frameworks use Objective-C.  A phenominal language that is
>used by
>> Apple and GNUStep. [Objective-c retain].
>>
>> Many of the die-hard mac people, that is not NeXT, are very wary of
>Objective-C,
>> poor souls, and are continuing to develop C/C++ based Apps.  From my
>limited
>> experience with D I believe it can match the performance of C++ and
>eclipse the
>> performance of COCOA java and Objective-C.
>>
>> From that perspective if it was runing on the platform someone at Apple
>might be
>> persuaded to build a small CARBON / Core foundation application in D to
>show to
>> Avie and Steve.
>>
>> Faced with a small, fast, somwhat dynamic, language that simplifies
>development,
>> offers many of the advantages of java, at least form Apple application development perpective, without the overhead and startup cost may be of
>great
>> interest to a company know for its innovation and its penchant for bucking
>the
>> trend.
>>
>> Anyway back to the real world.
>>
>> In article <bl26r6$2b0o$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Charles Hixson says...
>> >
>> >Charles Sanders wrote:
>> >> win2k with cygwin == awesome.  I still keep a linux box around but for
>a
>> >> desktop win2k has won my heart ;)
>> >>
>> >> Charles
>> >> ...
>> >
>> >Please read the EULA.  I don't for certain know that the win2k EULA is unlivewithable, but I've seen snippets of the XP?  XT? version, and I won't allow it in my home.  And I've seen representations that some of the security patches came with clauses that retrofitted the win2k license to be just as bad.
>> >
>> >The EULA is my original reason for fleeing MSWindows.  It took me six months before I had a useable system (this was a few years ago), and I still considered it time well spent.  These days...I'll generally reccommend that you hire someone else if you want work done with MS.  And I surely won't install it.  (Well, I can accept the Win95 and Win98 licenses.  They're not too bad.)
>> >
>> >Sometimes technical slickness doesn't suffice.  Fortunately, MS is losing out even on that end.  (If you don't think so, check our a system configured to look like a MSWind system...Linux does it without any problem.  But most people don't care for the costs over more than the short term.  [You might look at a Lycoris box, or a Xandros one...their software tends to be a bit behind the curve, but their graphics make you think it's windows {this is a plus?}.])
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

In article <bl2k90$2tkd$1@digitaldaemon.com>, jhenzie@mac.com says...
>
>Keep it to D boys otherwise I am going to have to get on my OS X soap box, oops slipped.
>
>Actually as an aside I think OS X is a great target for D and here's why.
>
There are currently no D compilers for PowerPC so I think that someone would have to get the GNU D compiler rolling.

<jhenzie@mac.com> wrote in message news:bl39od$nrr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> With D that might be different, especially as its something they know
little or
> nothing about,
> particulally if it can be demostrated that D provides the developer
productivity
> of Java and C# with
> the speed and flexibility of C++, they could be a phenominal ally in
developing
> this beast,
> particulally woth regards to GCC on PPC.

I've been intrigued by claims of Python being a very productive language to write apps. (The downside of Python is the slow runtime performance.) Just for fun I've tried porting some Python code to D. It goes pretty easy, which leads me to suspect that writing D can be almost as productive as writing Python, but with the performance of C++ at runtime.

I would think that would be broadly true, if/when D has tuples, or a suitable (perhaps DTL) alternative.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:br5ik7$10i9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> <jhenzie@mac.com> wrote in message news:bl39od$nrr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > With D that might be different, especially as its something they know
> little or
> > nothing about,
> > particulally if it can be demostrated that D provides the developer
> productivity
> > of Java and C# with
> > the speed and flexibility of C++, they could be a phenominal ally in
> developing
> > this beast,
> > particulally woth regards to GCC on PPC.
>
> I've been intrigued by claims of Python being a very productive language
to
> write apps. (The downside of Python is the slow runtime performance.) Just for fun I've tried porting some Python code to D. It goes pretty easy,
which
> leads me to suspect that writing D can be almost as productive as writing Python, but with the performance of C++ at runtime.
>
>

In article <br5jqs$12j4$3@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
>
>I would think that would be broadly true, if/when D has tuples, or a suitable (perhaps DTL) alternative.

I think this could be a library thing, at least for the imediate future. We could augment it with Best Practices for converting tuple-using code to D.

>"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:br5ik7$10i9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> <jhenzie@mac.com> wrote in message news:bl39od$nrr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> > With D that might be different, especially as its something they know
>> > little or nothing about, particulally if it can be demostrated that D
>> > provides the developer productivity of Java and C# with
>> > the speed and flexibility of C++, they could be a phenominal ally in
>> > developing this beast, particulally woth regards to GCC on PPC.
>>
>> I've been intrigued by claims of Python being a very productive language to write apps. (The downside of Python is the slow runtime performance.) Just for fun I've tried porting some Python code to D. It goes pretty easy, which leads me to suspect that writing D can be almost as productive as writing Python, but with the performance of C++ at runtime.

Yes. And for the C(++) programmer, the step to D is a lot shorter than to Python. This means that he can be pretty productive right from the start with D.

(Typically a programmer who switches languages has a switchover time during which he can't use his favorite idioms in the new language, nor can he yet use the new idioms. The more the languages differ, the narrower is his choice before he becomes fluent.)

Adding this to what Walter said, the choice should a no-brainer!

Georg Wrede wrote:
> I think this could be a library thing, at least for the imediate future. We could augment it with Best Practices for converting tuple-using code to D.

Our template system is too weak to make tuples a convenient library feature, unlike C++.

However taking previous design decisions into account, we should rather make 2 simple additions to the language, instead of pushing up the tempate system.

-eye