Why are you people so hostile to me for wanting some of C# features in D?
And why can't D have classes in dlls? If I was talking about C++, then yeah, you can't add them there since there are too many compilers that wouldn't support that, but for D which has one compiler, one linker and under development. .NET dlls are dlls under a different format, that is why they support classes.

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

SpookyET wrote:

> Why are you people so hostile to me for wanting some of C# features in D?
> And why can't D have classes in dlls? If I was talking about C++, then  yeah, you can't add them there since there are too many compilers that  wouldn't support that, but for D which has one compiler, one linker and  under development. .NET dlls are dlls under a different format, that is  why they support classes.
> 

It's not hostility, it's disagreement. (there's a big difference) Suggesting improvements to D is great, but it's obvious that there's not much support for what you're proposing.  Them's the breaks.

Can we drop this discussion now?

 -- andy

SpookyET wrote:

> Why are you people so hostile to me for wanting some of C# features in D?

I guess D is kinda an anti-C# anti-Microsoft language <g>.   A lot of the features you request for D (from C#) are already there but in a different form.  Suggesting a syntax change of these forms is not a good idea (we don't want C# now do we) and adding new syntax that does what already exists is also a bad idea.

Another thing is you keep mixing up the library with the language itself (well I admit some of these lines are blurred sometimes).  D's library is in its infancy, so if you want to contribute some code to that by all means.

Your views on d versus C# are more then welcome in this group (it is always good to have a range of opinions) however please present a D form that fits into the current structure.  If C# developers have looked at all these other languages (like D has done) why not dig up the original language rather then refer C# all the time (frankly all the C# talk getting a bit boring).

BTW you do know that it's most likely that no big changes will make D 1.0 however they will have some say in D 2.0.  However the bare metal stuff will not change.

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

You are very welcome to post suggestions for features. It would be nice if
you could also give reasons, example uses or other kinds, other than "C# has
it, so it's cool stuff".
The latter is _not_ a valid argument, and may indeed generate somewhat
allergic reactions in this group. Nothing personal, though

"SpookyET" <not4_u@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:opr3r4kjdx1s9n15@saturn...
> Why are you people so hostile to me for wanting some of C# features in D? And why can't D have classes in dlls? If I was talking about C++, then yeah, you can't add them there since there are too many compilers that wouldn't support that, but for D which has one compiler, one linker and under development. .NET dlls are dlls under a different format, that is why they support classes.
>
> -- 
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
> You are very welcome to post suggestions for features. It would be nice if
> you could also give reasons, example uses or other kinds, other than "C# has
> it, so it's cool stuff".
> The latter is _not_ a valid argument, and may indeed generate somewhat
> allergic reactions in this group. Nothing personal, though
> 


if all languages had all the same features implemented in the same way ...

:-)

bye,
roel

J Anderson wrote:
> BTW you do know that it's most likely that no big changes will make D 1.0 however they will have some say in D 2.0.  However the bare metal stuff will not change.

I would like to believe that this is wrong. That is, additional features would probably not get in, they are planned for D 2.0. However, changes to the basic language have to be done *NOW*, if at all, because we wouldn't want to break compatibility once 1.0 is out.

However, i'd say the language groundwork is very good as it is, and you need *very*, *very* compelling reasons to change them now. Almost every aspect has been discussed for a few times, and a thin agreement between various members of community with their different views and Walter has been reached. It has never been easy to convince Walter, but i'd say it's good since he is acting from his belief in how things would be right, and not because someone told him that he/we "need" something.

To SpookyET: no, we are not hostile. But your argumend that "there is only one D compiler" doesn't count. The thing you suggest here poses a significant restriction on the toolchain. In particular, it does not comply to the restrictions of GCC, which is to be the next target, since  Windows is not enough to conquer the world. In future, other operating systems will become increasingly more important. Just look at the amount of Linux support done by IBM and some other major companies! BTW, who says D can't have classes in DLLs? ;) It just needs some source to reference them.

-eye