"Ilya Minkov" <minkov@cs.tum.edu> skrev i en meddelelse news:c0b4d6$1o3c$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthias Becker wrote:
> > This is a good example for why I don't like D. I like coding. I do it a
lot in
> > my freetime. I don't want to get the job done quickly. I want coding to
be fun.

D addresses the very important problem of making system level programming
easier.
For many interesting problems, Ruby, OCaml, or pick you favorite, are better
languages than D, but for writing code that interacts with libraries etc.,
you need C linkage with more or less full type support.

D also addresses the issue of deployment in that you need no external enviroment in order to fire up you application. This is not the case for Java / C#.


> I agree that C syntax is flawed. But unfortunately, most people are too narrow-minded to get past learning a new syntax (probably because C was such a pain that they are afraid :> ), and since we intend D to become generally popular, in the industry, and everywhere, this would (sadly) stay the major selling point.

C#, Java, C++, Javascript all use the C convention for operators. Being conformant is more important than being elegant. However, I see no reason why D couldn't have friendly operator alias names which would be recommended over the C style operators:

&&  and
|| or
! not
| bitor
& bitand
etc.

You still need to keep the semantics, for example the short circuit logic of && etc. whether this is a good or bad thing. The worst thing is the precendence of the bit operators.

Mikkel

Matthias Becker wrote:

[...]
> I started with a simple Basic a long time ago. Than I learned C++
[...]
> Than I leaned D and it was boring.
[...]

From the docs `Who D is Not For':
| D makes an excellent _second_(!) language for intermediate to advanced
| programmers.

So long.

Come on guys - too much flaming.  His English wasn't that bad...

In article <c0bbqa$244v$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Manfred Nowak says...
>
>Matthias Becker wrote:
>
>[...]
>> I started with a simple Basic a long time ago. Than I learned C++
>[...]
>> Than I leaned D and it was boring.
>[...]
>
>From the docs `Who D is Not For':
>| D makes an excellent _second_(!) language for intermediate to advanced
>| programmers.
>
>So long.
>
>

Matthias Becker wrote:
> Than "String Switch Statements". Can I do it with any arrays or only with arrays
> of chars. I hate inconsitency. If I can do it with any array, why can't I do it
> with a self written class, if I want it to be similar to an array (e.g. a list).
> As said I hate inconsitency, so this is another point why I don't like D and not
> a feature.
> 

This is because like C/C++, switch cases must be constant values. You can't yet have a constant class object so it's not possible. I think D's way of string switches actually makes a lot of sense, because the language is more aware of arrays, and string literals are constant arrays. It just has not yet been expanded.


-- 
Christopher E. Miller
www.dprogramming.com

Vathix wrote:
> This is because like C/C++, switch cases must be constant values. You can't yet have a constant class object so it's not possible. I think D's way of string switches actually makes a lot of sense, because the language is more aware of arrays, and string literals are constant arrays. It just has not yet been expanded.

Don't classes with toHash also work?

-eye

Ilya Minkov wrote:
> 
> Don't classes with toHash also work?
> 

DMD says it is not an integral type.


-- 
Christopher E. Miller
www.dprogramming.com

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:35:31 +0000 (UTC) (02/10/04 22:35:31)
, Matthias Becker <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

> "It's a practical language for practical programmers who need to get the job
> done quickly, reliably, and leave behind maintainable, easy to understand code."
>
> This is a good example for why I don't like D. I like coding. I do it a lot in
> my freetime. I don't want to get the job done quickly. I want coding to be fun.

[huge snip]

I am not a D coder, but I've been lurking in this group for a long time now.

I don't use D because I've it is not the tool I need to use.

I lurk because it's might become that tool one day, and I can see potential in it.

My misgivings with D are twofold;
a) D is an evolutionary product in, that it is still firmly in the C family and that's where it wants to be. I was (am?) hoping for a revolutionary product.

b) D is controlled by one person's philosophy and to the extent that he listen's to his clients. I was (am?) hoping for a broader range of thinking and effective input. However, let me say that I think Walter is doing an above average job in this regard - some similar development environments are very 'closed shop/mind' ones.

One day soon, I am planning to start a real world project using D, mainly because I feel (rather than know) it should deliver a fine application. I would be using D instead of C/C++.

My preferred language for developing in is Euphoria ( www.rapideuphoria.com ), even though I have a number of misgivings with that product too.

The trick is, and always has been, to select the appropriate tool for the job at hand.

-- 
Derek

"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c0asm0$1bv1$1@digitaldaemon.com... | I totally agree with andy. the only the thing i dont like about D is its name.

Maybe D could be an abbreviation for something. How about "D'oh". Here are some others that come to mind:
dessert
death
dragon
domino
diaper

semi-seriously:
develop
deploy
dynamic

who knows... it could go on and on. My guess is it'll just be plain 'ol "D" that doesn't mean a thing.

-Ben

>"The general look of D is like C and C++."
>As C is very ugly, this is plain stupid. Most people I talked to (not all) don't
>like C's general look. So I consider this as being bad.

what? C code is ugly? I think that C-based programming languages have the best style: why else would it have stayed the same for over 30 years if it wasn't?

If you don't like C's look, then which language's look do you like?

Ben Hinkle wrote:

>"imr1984" <imr1984_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c0asm0$1bv1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>| I totally agree with andy. the only the thing i dont like about D is its name.
>
>Maybe D could be an abbreviation for something. How about "D'oh". Here are some others that come to mind:
>dessert
>death
>dragon
>domino
>diaper
>
>semi-seriously:
>develop
>deploy
>dynamic
>
>who knows... it could go on and on. My guess is it'll just be plain 'ol "D" that doesn't mean a thing.
>
>-Ben
>
>
>  
>
What about digital mar <g>

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/