In article <c0uila$2psn$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Juanjo =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=C1lvarez?= says...
>

>> Also, I'm not sure if you can do this (I don't think you can) but the ability to have a class contain C methods. For example:
>> 
>> class FileMethods {
>> extern (Windows):
>> public:
>> HANDLE CreateFileA(...);
>> HANDLE CreateFileW(...);
>> }

Yes you can.

>> 
>> That way, those of us bent on never having any stand-alone methods can wrap these methods in classes. This prevents the need to write wrapper methods that just call the C method.
>
>Sorry if I sound to harsh but that would be stuuuuuuuuuuupid.

no it's not.
(hopefully that is a simplified example just to illustrat the idea)

> What is,
>again, the advantage of that compared to having those functions in a module FileFunctions if wrapping them in a file class doesn't make sense?

You have none?...

Once I didn't get why a TV commercial changed it's voice off.
I knew nothing of the business.
When I met guy from a marketing company a asked him and he come
up with 6 different reasons on the spot.

read any basic OO introduction.

of course this is not the place to have a "OO / procedural / functional / whatever" war.

Ant

In article <c10gbi$30gk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ant says...
>

Yikes, sorry about the spelling.

Ant

"Juanjo Álvarez" <juanjux@NOSPAMyahoo.es> wrote in message news:c0uila$2psn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Knaar wrote:
>
>
> > The first thing I would like to critisize, however, is D's approach to objects. The thing I was most disappointed about was the lack of classes/objects being utilised in the std.* modules.

Good thing about modules: you can remove them and implement your OOwn!

>
> I don't have any problem with functions, they are useful and make sense sometimes where methods doesn't (public static void main LOL...). For example, I'm writing a port of almost all the Linux/Unix libc-API to D, mostly functions. Part of that API will be later wrapped in objects (terminal, socket-stream, process, pipe-stream, mmap-stream, etc) but part won't, because it has little sense to create an object just to make a directory (mkdir), to change the uid (setuid), or to put an environment
var
> (putenv) (and it would be pretty absurd to encapsulate fork() in an
object,
> given his nature). Objects are nice and I use them all the time, but sometimes structs and functions just fits better.

Sounds like you've been living in a procedural world lately, don't let it affect the OO parts of your brain too much ;)

In article <c10gbi$30gk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ant says...

try
{

>You have
none?...
> 
>Once I didn't get why a TV commercial changed it's voice off. I
knew nothing of the business.
>When I met guy from a marketing company a asked
him and he come
>up with 6 different reasons on the spot.
> 
>read any basic
OO introduction.

I don't need it, I do OO programming in my work (sometimes
in Java BTW and
sometimes on other OO languages) and I do OO programming in my
free-time pet
projects so I know what I'm speaking about. Classes and objects
are the right
solution to a lot of problems, but they are not _always_ the best
solution to
_any_ given problem like the original poster suggests and saying
otherwise is
just religion (BTW you have not given any good reason of why
wrapping static
functions in a static class is so _evidently_ superior to
grouping them in a
module).

>of course this is not the place to have a
>"OO / procedural / functional / whatever" war.

No, it is not, and anyway if you're confident on knowing the truth about this
pure OO against mixed paradigm question, I'm also and we're not surely going
to change our opinions just throwing axes here so...

} catch (ParadigmFlameWarException e)
{
	e.ignore();
} finally {
	Cheers,
		Juanjo
}

the trick is, that way C++/C interfaces (COM and similar) are directly
mapable to D interfaces.

thats a big +, not?

"Juanjo Álvarez" <juanjux@yahoo.es> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c10sh6$j7g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <c10gbi$30gk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ant says...
>
> try
> {
>
> >You have
> none?...
> >
> >Once I didn't get why a TV commercial changed it's voice off. I
> knew nothing of the business.
> >When I met guy from a marketing company a asked
> him and he come
> >up with 6 different reasons on the spot.
> >
> >read any basic
> OO introduction.
>
> I don't need it, I do OO programming in my work (sometimes
> in Java BTW and
> sometimes on other OO languages) and I do OO programming in my
> free-time pet
> projects so I know what I'm speaking about. Classes and objects
> are the right
> solution to a lot of problems, but they are not _always_ the best
> solution to
> _any_ given problem like the original poster suggests and saying
> otherwise is
> just religion (BTW you have not given any good reason of why
> wrapping static
> functions in a static class is so _evidently_ superior to
> grouping them in a
> module).
>
> >of course this is not the place to have a
> >"OO / procedural / functional / whatever" war.
>
> No, it is not, and anyway if you're confident on knowing the truth about
this
> pure OO against mixed paradigm question, I'm also and we're not surely
going
> to change our opinions just throwing axes here so...
>
> } catch (ParadigmFlameWarException e)
> {
> e.ignore();
> } finally {
> Cheers,
> Juanjo
> }
>
>
>
>

In article <c10em5$2tem$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...

>We have
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FrontPage which actually
>works pretty
well.  We've been asking for a D.phobos forever prolly not
>happening , there
is a phobos Page under Folders/Projects , it would be a
>good place to start.
I've done some modifications,take a look:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Phobos

Now it needs a more visible
link on the front page and people not called
"Juanjo Álvarez" actually
registering his projects there ;) (and people in
this newsgroups telling people
to use it).

"Juanjo Álvarez" <juanjux@yahoo.es> wrote in message news:c10vbn$nqd$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <c10em5$2tem$1@digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
>
> >We have
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?FrontPage which actually
> >works pretty
> well.  We've been asking for a D.phobos forever prolly not
> >happening , there
> is a phobos Page under Folders/Projects , it would be a
> >good place to start.
> I've done some modifications,take a look: http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?Phobos
>
> Now it needs a more visible
> link on the front page and people not called
> "Juanjo Álvarez" actually
> registering his projects there ;) (and people in
> this newsgroups telling people
> to use it).

And this has saved us all some effort already! I had planned the other day to write an argument parser, and I see you've done one. Bravo!

I look forward to using it. :)

In article <c11buc$1bt2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> 
>And this has
saved us all some effort already! I had planned the other day
>to write an
argument parser, and I see you've done one. Bravo!

Me too! I was about to
implement an object oriented mmap module until I've seen
you've already taken
the task. Nice :)

Knaar ,when D is a very young language and perhap you don't look to D spec
and/or don't look at this:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/comparison.html
which D vs C/C++/C# and Java ( which I have teleport all of D sites to my hd
for reading offline , sorry for that )
D syntax somewhere like C#/C++ when inherite by A : B and use "interface" +
plus "import" packages .
So D will be a mixture from C++/C# and Java also combine all strengths of
those languages.
Why do D not have a String class or any needed class ? Because it's not
implemented ( or wrapper , or adapt , evrything you call ).
 BTW, you can implement it , of course .
I have seen some project which wrap all kind of GUI to packages and you can
reach one of them at
http://int19h.tamb.ru/projects.html
Everything in Java not object like base datatype as int,boolean , char and
etc ...If my mind right , auto-boxing have just implemented in Tiger .
So we don't suprise when in D has something not object . They ( and you)
haven't implemented yet , not D :).
I really like Java , but the downside of it is it's speed . When I reach D ,
wow , I see that it's the language what I dream of .
Powerful , OO paradigm like my favorite pet ( Java ) and don't restrict in
Sandbox  , wow ;) .
The main reason don't use OO in std , cause the time and strength of D. When
you write Direct X code in your C# app , the class haven't auto-implemented
. M$ have implemented for you in C# ( and not in C++ ) .So please don't
blame at poor st.* packages :)  . It's not implemented yet , you can wrap it
to a System packages , if you want .
 The main reason is D keep C++ not-fully OO sides cause D is successor of
C++ and C++ is successor of C .
I'd really don't appreciate the idea of multi-inheritance and operator
overloading cause I don't need it and never use it ;) ( A Java guy I am )
But when D coders must use the strength from Windows APIs or Linux APIs (
Linux build on C hmm)  +plus speed , they must need it and it's the fastest
way , faster than JNI and don't deal with more troubles in JNI .
If you want class , just wrap it. If you want Tiger generic , use template
:). If you wanna do "import" instead "using" ,use D and Java :)
Just my 2 cents
Regards,
Nam

"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle4@juno.com> wrote in message news:c0vqrs$1p44$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Knaar" <Knaar_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:c0u870$29fj$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | This be my first post. First of all, I have to rant and rave about how
much I
> | like D. I read someone posted that there's "no original concepts" in D
but
> that
> | to me is totally irrelevant. Experiemental languages with blow-your-mind
> | concepts are rarely practical to use. I like D's amalgamation of useful
and
> | practical features from a veriety of languages.
>
> Cool! welcome.
>
> | The first thing I would like to critisize, however, is D's approach to
> objects.
> | The thing I was most disappointed about was the lack of classes/objects
being
> | utilised in the std.* modules. In Java everything *MUST* be an object.
There
> is
> | no such thing as stand-alone functions or methods, all functions are
members
> of
> | classes which in turn can be instantiated into objects. This "everything
is an
> | object" approach is an ideal, I know, but it does have a lot of up-sides
to
> it.
> | Any Java, Smalltalk, Ruby, C#, etc programmer is usually absolutely
obsessed
> | with objects and would find the std.* library extremely inadiquate, if
not
> | flatly unusable.
>
> The biggest items missing are containers (being worked on) and a GUI
toolkit
> (several in progress). And I'm in the camp that the GUI toolkit doesn't belong in the standard library. With those D will become extremely usable. The use of functions in std.* means all those calls are non-virtual (which is a small performance boost over virtual dispatching). In Java the
equivalent
> would be static functions and there isn't much difference between typing
> "classname.func(...)" and "modulename.func(...)".
>
> | Now, I know there really isn't a huge need for a String class, but I
would
> still
> | like the option of using one. The main reason being that char[] is
mutable,
> | while usually a implementation of String is immutable. This allows for a
great
> | deal of optimizations on strings, allowing duplicates to be eliminated
easily.
>
> If you want a string class for interning then it can be done "by hand" (no
> need for a class). Just write a function "stringpool.intern" that takes a
> char[] and interns it and returns the resulting char[]. Mutability is
> then the responsibility of the programmer (same with any object that
> is treated by reference). Given that std.string functions are "copy on
write"
> this means strings are fast if you don't modify them.
> On the topic of string classes, it would be a fun experiment to wrap an
> object around
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/gc_source/cordh.txt
> With overloading [] it could behave similarly to a D array. This would be
> a neat little utility.
>
>
>
>

>
>The first thing I would like to critisize, however, is D's approach to objects. The thing I was most disappointed about was the lack of classes/objects being utilised in the std.* modules. In Java everything *MUST* be an object. There is no such thing as stand-alone functions or methods, all functions are members of classes which in turn can be instantiated into objects. This "everything is an object" approach is an ideal, I know, but it does have a lot of up-sides to it. Any Java, Smalltalk, Ruby, C#, etc programmer is usually absolutely obsessed with objects and would find the std.* library extremely inadiquate, if not flatly unusable.

huh?    so we want fake Math objects wrapping sine, cosine, etc functions?
The Functional Programming folks would argue everything should be a function.

Purists belong in academia not in real-life programming.