he obviously stated he loves the basic style.

i hate this redundancy of basic. it's very stupid.

same as xml.

stupid.

"kinghajj" <kinghajj_member@pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c0bqph$2tqe$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >"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?
>
>

 I don't understand it. But
> how to like a thing, that you don't even understand?

Have you ever heard of the saying,
"If you dont like somthing, or somebody, it is because you dont
understand it or them" ?


> "Who D is For [...] Those who decide the promise of C++ object oriented
> programming is not fulfilled due to the complexity of it."
> So it's for stupid people?

This is very interesting, earlier on you stated that you dont understand D.
Now here you say that it is for stupid people.
If you dont understand it(not saying that I do yet) then what are you?  :o))

Phill.

"Alex A. B." <freshmind@fromru.com> wrote in message news:c0b14b$1iqj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Representing string as array gives
> you understanding of what it really is - simple array of characters.

I think you hit the nail on the head why D strings are the way they are. I too have a hard time thinking of strings as being an object, like I have a hard time thinking of an int as being an object.

Java arrays are not quite arrays and not quite objects (can't derive from an array), they have characteristics of both (sort of like light acting as a wave and a particle <g>). In addition, Java strings are not Java arrays of characters. That just didn't feel quite right to me, either.

I've written a few string processing utilities in D, and the way arrays, arrays of chars, slicing, etc., all come together gives it a very natural feel.

I realize that in a pure OO language, everything is an object. But D isn't meant to be a pure OO language, there are several good ones out there filling that niche quite well already.

There is also nothing at all preventing one from writing a string class in D. In fact, a couple have been written and posted here.

"Ilya Minkov" <minkov@cs.tum.edu> wrote in message news:c0b4d6$1o3c$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The ~ operator is important, since it allows to keep + free to later mean memberwise addition. In general, this memberwise operations on the whole array would allow to later trivially write an optimizing compiler which uses up SIMD instruction sets, thus boosting D to a different performance level than most C++ compilers.

Yes, that is exactly the point with ~.

> And i thought there was opSlice overload in the spec?

There is.

> > 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.
> Switch statement should work on everything which has toHash defined.

Matthias has a good point, but the trouble is there is no object literal syntax, so some significant design work would need to be done to support that.


> The advantages of D lie in detail.

That's true. People ask me for the sound bite for why one should switch to D, and there really isn't one big one. It's an accumulation of a lot of small things, it's the aggregate that is compelling. For example, array slicing is not a big deal by itself. But couple it with garbage collection, and suddenly the value of array slicing multiplies several times over.


> C++ complexity is not so structural - D contains many more constructs and could thus be considered more complex. C++ complexity is from often unnatural interaction of features.

I'll give an example out of the C++ standard 13.4-5:
------------------------------
struct X {
    int f(int) { return 1; }
};

int (X::*p1)(int)  = &X::f;     //  OK
int (X::*p5)(int)  = &(X::f);   //  error: wrong syntax for
                                //  pointer to member
-------------------------------
Adding the parentheses makes it an error.

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c0afm3$nfg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Well these were some specific points mentioned in D's specification. But
it's a
> more general feeling, that I can't describe. Sorry.

I do thank you for making the effort. It's good to get all kinds of feedback on the language, the negative as well as the positive.

>he obviously stated he loves the basic style.
Nope.

he stated these things:
begin
end

and

no ; but \n

and _ as "kill \n"

namely

functionCall()

and

functionCall(withSome, _
                 params)

this is, more or less, basic style.

if something then
  do
endif

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c0csej$1mkm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >he obviously stated he loves the basic style.
> Nope.
>
>

>You're latent masochist. ;)
Maybe :p


>Practical programmer has fun not writing the code, but implementing ideas, and has ultimate fun when it finally works.

But can you develope new ideas in a language you don't like?


[...]
>I can hardly remember any language in last decade which does really change something.

So people weren't very creative in the last decade. That's a pity.

>If you want to change a way you think you need to learn logic and functional programming.

So Haskell and Lisp aren't functional? But I haven't learned any logic language.


[...]
>Representing string as array
>gives
>you understanding of what it really is - simple array of characters.

So perhaps we should do everithing in Assembler?


[...]
>So why are you still ranting here? Do you reallly suppose D will go 180
>degrees
>back or what!?
No, I don't.

>C is not ugly, but ugly are the people who do not understand the natural flow of life.

Could you please explain this?


[...]
>You should stop sometime learning new stuff and start doing something really significant.

I should stop learning new stuff? That's an interesting oppinion.

>By accident you will find out that all the
>stuff you learned
>before is plain pathetic.

Hm, I used the stuff I learnd e.g. to develope my virtual guitar amplifier (
http://helium.ex0.org/guitifier.zip ; you need a VST-compatible host to use it;
this is a Win-PC-version only, MacOSX will follow).
So my amp is plain pathetic? :(

>he stated these things:
>begin
>end
>
>and
>
>no ; but \n
>
>and _ as "kill \n"
>
>namely
>
>functionCall()
>
>and
>
>functionCall(withSome, _
>                 params)
>
>this is, more or less, basic style.
>
>if something then
>  do
>endif

???

I know the basic synthax, but as said in my last answer I don't like it, so what are you talking about? It seems like I got you wrong.

strange. looks like i mixed your thread with some c++ bashing thread of someone else.. i thought it was you stating how much you would prefer if endif, no ;, but newline, and the _ to continue..

looks like it wasn't you.

where was that then?! irritated..

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c0cu0j$1pcf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >he stated these things:
> >begin
> >end
> >
> >and
> >
> >no ; but \n
> >
> >and _ as "kill \n"
> >
> >namely
> >
> >functionCall()
> >
> >and
> >
> >functionCall(withSome, _
> >                 params)
> >
> >this is, more or less, basic style.
> >
> >if something then
> >  do
> >endif
>
> ???
>
> I know the basic synthax, but as said in my last answer I don't like it,
so what
> are you talking about? It seems like I got you wrong.
>
>