"Ilya Minkov" <minkov@cs.tum.edu> wrote in message news:c0godn$1v90$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I must agree with Matthias. I like Pascal and especially Sather syntax. After i got used to C's idioms i don't care much though. But before i did, C syntax was a major source of bugs. And it stays a source of redundant parenthesis.

Interestingly, I learned and used Pascal for years before I'd ever heard of C, yet when I ran across C I found its syntax to be refreshing in comparison. I never looked back nor wrote another line in Pascal.

In article <c0dq5f$78p$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
>Assembler should definately be part of the curriculum.  I actually had a major problem fiding a decent book on assembler recently.  Sadly, the best one I could find taught it through a sort of high-level macro language.  The reason the author gave was that most of his students didn't understand Assembler until he taught it using abstractions.  I'm not sure if this means that ASM is becoming a lost art or if colleges are merely generating a mass of second-rate programmers.

Yeah, it's really a pity.  I was looking at the book for a little, and I stopped as soon as I got to an example of the code and saw that it used "High Level Assembly".  But anyway, the old version of the book uses pure x86 assembler, so it's worth reading.  It only does DOS assembler programming though, and I don't know how different Windows and Linux programming is in assembler.  I assumes that it only puts restrictions on the program, extends other aspects of the program, and of course requires you to use Windows/Linux specific calls much like with C++, though it's always possible that an OS defines an entirely new instruction set for its OS, requiring you to learn a new set of instructions and a new architechture, but I'm fairly certain Windows doesn't do this at least.  I actually read the first 4 chapters or so of the book, and though it uses simpler processors than 80x86 to get you started with programming through chapter 4 so I didn't get to actual 80x86 programming at all because it doesn't introduce it until chapter 5, what I learned from the little I read has been extremely helpful to my understanding of computers and programming to date.

http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/ <-- in case you lost the link
It's been 2 1/2 years, but I think I might start reading this again.  Thanks!

Ah, I was looking at day old posts and didn't realize that there were newer ones.  It's still relative I guess

In article <c0hbno$2tb8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Luke D says...
>
>In article <c0dq5f$78p$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
>>Assembler should definately be part of the curriculum.  I actually had a major problem fiding a decent book on assembler recently.  Sadly, the best one I could find taught it through a sort of high-level macro language.  The reason the author gave was that most of his students didn't understand Assembler until he taught it using abstractions.  I'm not sure if this means that ASM is becoming a lost art or if colleges are merely generating a mass of second-rate programmers.
>
>Yeah, it's really a pity.  I was looking at the book for a little, and I stopped as soon as I got to an example of the code and saw that it used "High Level Assembly".  But anyway, the old version of the book uses pure x86 assembler, so it's worth reading.  It only does DOS assembler programming though, and I don't know how different Windows and Linux programming is in assembler.  I assumes that it only puts restrictions on the program, extends other aspects of the program, and of course requires you to use Windows/Linux specific calls much like with C++, though it's always possible that an OS defines an entirely new instruction set for its OS, requiring you to learn a new set of instructions and a new architechture, but I'm fairly certain Windows doesn't do this at least.  I actually read the first 4 chapters or so of the book, and though it uses simpler processors than 80x86 to get you started with programming through chapter 4 so I didn't get to actual 80x86 programming at all because it doesn't introduce it until chapter 5, what I learned from the little I read has been extremely helpful to my understanding of computers and programming to date.
>
>http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/ <-- in case you lost the link
>It's been 2 1/2 years, but I think I might start reading this again.  Thanks!
>
>

Luke D wrote:
> 
> Yeah, it's really a pity.  I was looking at the book for a little, and I stopped
> as soon as I got to an example of the code and saw that it used "High Level
> Assembly".  But anyway, the old version of the book uses pure x86 assembler, so
> it's worth reading.  It only does DOS assembler programming though, and I don't
> know how different Windows and Linux programming is in assembler.

Not much different, but I don't think the old book covers 32-bit assembler, which is why I got the new one.  HLA or not, it was by far the best-written book on x86 asm I could find.  Spec documents from Intel don't count ;)

Sean

> Assembler should definately be part of the curriculum.  I actually had a major problem fiding a decent book on assembler recently.  Sadly, the best one I could find taught it through a sort of high-level macro language.  The reason the author gave was that most of his students didn't understand Assembler until he taught it using abstractions.  I'm not sure if this means that ASM is becoming a lost art or if colleges are merely generating a mass of second-rate programmers.

I wouldn't think that there is any lack, at least on our high school here. We get snippets of assembler from time to time. Last year it was a good deal of x86, this year it's a VAX-like machine, but we learn not only assembler, but also implementation of concepts in assembly, including loops, arrays, synchronization primitives, interrupts and OS calls. I'd say an ultra-evil CISC helps... About half of our last exam was assembly and system calls, and some synchronization issues in Java.

As to x86 assembly books, my first recommendation would be PC Assembly Language by Paul A. Carter. It teaches 386 and upwards, and using assembly from within C and not on its own. Downloadable here: http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm/

Some more books i don't really know here: http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/Assembly/x86/Books/?il=1

A real treasure is HUGI diskmag special coding digest. It contains a *ton* of additional wizdom, including assembly optimization.

> To return to D for a moment... it's not revolutionary but then it wasn't meant to be.  As far as the industry is concerned, this is actually a good thing.  Its compatibility with C gives it a massive amount of library support, and the language similarities with many popular procedural languages makes it easy to learn.  At the same time, it draws some of the best features from popular languages: C, C++, Java, Ada (if Ada could be considered popular ;) ) and adds some new tricks as well. The compiler is relatively lightweight, performance is very good, and binary size is comparable to an equivalent C program.  What's not to like?

Besides, it's work in progress. Watch a new legend build up. \o/
And we have power to convince Walter to meet our interests and/or avoid serious mistakes. :> But i'd say it's good he has enough power to decide what of our complaints are important and what not.

-eye

In article <c0dtlb$d3l$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c0dr7h$8t8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> [...]
>> >At the same time, it draws
>> >some of the best features from popular languages: C, C++, Java, Ada (if
>> >Ada could be considered popular ;) ) and adds some new tricks as well.
>> Which?
>
>I assume you mean what's new. The biggest 'new' thing in D is the foreach statement and the way one writes a class collection that is foreach'able. This technique is much easier to write for than other languages, and is unique to D.
>

Not entirely true. Foreach is also in Ruby.

>For a rough comparison of features, there's www.digitalmars.com/d/comparison.html, though that table does not include Ada.
>
>I agree that D is not a revolutionary language. It's evolutionary - a 'refactoring' so to speak of existing ideas and experience. If you ever watch the History Channel, for example, they once ran a history of power tools. The first handheld electric drill was revolutionary. What followed were a series of refinements, none of which were revolutionary, but the net effect is that the electric drill of today is far superior to the original.
>
>

-- Robert

In article <c0dtlb$d3l$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c0dr7h$8t8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> [...]
>> >At the same time, it draws
>> >some of the best features from popular languages: C, C++, Java, Ada (if
>> >Ada could be considered popular ;) ) and adds some new tricks as well.
>> Which?
>
>I assume you mean what's new. The biggest 'new' thing in D is the foreach statement and the way one writes a class collection that is foreach'able. This technique is much easier to write for than other languages, and is unique to D.
>

Not entirely true. Foreach is also in Ruby.

>For a rough comparison of features, there's www.digitalmars.com/d/comparison.html, though that table does not include Ada.
>
>I agree that D is not a revolutionary language. It's evolutionary - a 'refactoring' so to speak of existing ideas and experience. If you ever watch the History Channel, for example, they once ran a history of power tools. The first handheld electric drill was revolutionary. What followed were a series of refinements, none of which were revolutionary, but the net effect is that the electric drill of today is far superior to the original.
>
>

-- Robert

Robert Jones wrote:

>>
>>I assume you mean what's new. The biggest 'new' thing in D is the foreach
>>statement and the way one writes a class collection that is foreach'able.
>>This technique is much easier to write for than other languages, and is
>>unique to D.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Not entirely true. Foreach is also in Ruby.
>
>  
>
I suggest you re-read Walters answer.  He's not saying that for foreach isn't in other languages, he's talking about the way it can be used.  Many languages have foreach (PHP, Perl, C# to name a few).

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

In article <c0ra1g$fl4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
>
>Robert Jones wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I assume you mean what's new. The biggest 'new' thing in D is the foreach statement and the way one writes a class collection that is foreach'able. This technique is much easier to write for than other languages, and is unique to D.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>Not entirely true. Foreach is also in Ruby.
>>
>> 
>>
>I suggest you re-read Walters answer.  He's not saying that for foreach isn't in other languages, he's talking about the way it can be used. Many languages have foreach (PHP, Perl, C# to name a few).
>

I did read his answer I was disageeing with the following and giving a example. The specific part is in all caps.

"This technique is much easier to write for than other languages, and IS UNIQUE TO D."

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

-- Robert Jones

yeah, but he ment the side on writing own foreach's. this iis much easier to write and UNIQUE TO OTHER LANGUAGES.

at least, i think.

foreach itself isn't, yes.

"Robert Jones" <robertjones21@HotPOP.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c0s257$1of1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <c0ra1g$fl4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J Anderson says...
> >
> >Robert Jones wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>I assume you mean what's new. The biggest 'new' thing in D is the
foreach
> >>>statement and the way one writes a class collection that is
foreach'able.
> >>>This technique is much easier to write for than other languages, and is unique to D.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Not entirely true. Foreach is also in Ruby.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >I suggest you re-read Walters answer.  He's not saying that for foreach isn't in other languages, he's talking about the way it can be used. Many languages have foreach (PHP, Perl, C# to name a few).
> >
>
> I did read his answer I was disageeing with the following and giving a
example.
> The specific part is in all caps.
>
> "This technique is much easier to write for than other languages, and IS UNIQUE TO D."
>
> >-- 
> >-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
>
> -- Robert Jones
>
>