In article <pan.2004.05.17.22.39.51.699006@swieton.net>, Mike Swieton says...
>
>On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:46:48 +0000, Charlie wrote:
>> I never liked this either, if the getters and setters do nothing more then just that ( i.e. they might check a value for a condition etc ) , then why not just make the data public ?  Even this month I read an article in favor of getters and setters in CUJ, I like python style much better.
>> 
>> Charlie
>
>That's why they are generally considered a bad idea. If a class is nothing but gets/sets, then it probably should have been a struct. Sure, there's proper uses for them, but when you start writing a lot of them, you should probably examine your design once, just to double check.
>
>Mike Swieton
>__
>But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common
>humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?
>	- Mark Twain
>

I'm creating a project that has a heavy OOP design with D. I like OOP so I don't have to use function(&datastruct) type syntaxes, rather class.function(), and using lots of globals is a bad design decision IMO.

i like using get-set methods because it allows me to change the insides of a class without effecting the outside classes/programs that use that class, like if for some reason i wanted to change m_data to m_data[].

imr1984 wrote:
> is anyone else here using D in a C stlye way, ie billions of globals, almost no
> classes etc?

Sort of. I don't create many classes. Part of the reason of why I program so procedurally is that I'm not used to OOP. I've programmed a little in Turbo Pascal and Java, but I've mostly used forms of BASIC. Consequently, I think in functions rather than objects. As I become more comfortable with D, I seem to create more classes.

> D just appeals to me because of its much cleaner syntax and no header files, not
> because of its great OOP capabilities. I especially dont like member protection
> because im a bedroom coder so i work on my own, so protecting member variables
> doesnt really appeal to me.

I'm in a similar position here, too. I don't have many people looking over my code, so I code how I want to code.

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

> Mike Swieton
> __
> But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common
> humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?
> - Mark Twain
>

Does that mean that prior to eighteen centuries ago,
there were people praying for Satan?

Phill wrote:

>> Mike Swieton
>> __
>> But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common
>> humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?
>> - Mark Twain
>>
> 
> Does that mean that prior to eighteen centuries ago,
> there were people praying for Satan?

I think, that citation is based on the theological thesis that before that time, there was no point in praying for sinners at all.

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:c8bjdv$1eun$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Sean Kelly" <sean@ffwd.cx> wrote in message news:c8bej6$181f$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > While I personally dislike get/set methods I do understand the reasoning behind them.  They are a pre-emptive tactic to enable back-end changes without requiring user-side code changes.  However, properties in D pretty much eliminate the need for this tactic, as there is no semantic difference between public variables and property methods.  It's worth noting that properties have been proposed as an addition to the next version of C++ (http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1611.pdf), probably for this exact reason.
>
> Someday, C++ may catch up with D <g>.
>
>

I send an e-mail to Bjarne Stroustrup regarding the future of C++ now that D is around the corner. He told me to leave him alone and go use D, and that C++ is not gonna change anytime soon (although he said it very politely).

I guess some people never realize when their time is over.

"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar@b-online.gr> wrote in message news:c8dojk$2048$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:c8bjdv$1eun$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Someday, C++ may catch up with D <g>.
> I send an e-mail to Bjarne Stroustrup regarding the future of C++ now that
D
> is around the corner. He told me to leave him alone and go use D, and that C++ is not gonna change anytime soon (although he said it very politely).
>
> I guess some people never realize when their time is over.

D stands on the shoulders of giants, and one of those giants is Bjarne Stroustrup. Bjarne has made huge contributions to the programming community. C++ was a great leap forward, and it practically invented generic metaprogramming.

C++ isn't going away in the forseeable future. I fully expect that future C++ standards will incorporate some of D's innovations, in an analogous way that C has adopted some C++ innovations. Bjarne is right, though, in suggesting that this will not happen anytime soon. The C++ standardization process is agonizingly slow (and should be, for a mature language).

And, in due course, D will eventually be run over by a new upstart, D++ <g>.

"Norbert Nemec" <Norbert.Nemec@gmx.de> wrote in message news:c8d2ee$nu6$3@digitaldaemon.com...
> Phill wrote:
>
> >> Mike Swieton
> >> __
> >> But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common
> >> humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?
> >> - Mark Twain
> >>
> >
> > Does that mean that prior to eighteen centuries ago,
> > there were people praying for Satan?
>
> I think, that citation is based on the theological thesis that before that time, there was no point in praying for sinners at all.

Ah right, because when Jesus was crucified everyone
started on a new slate(except Satan ofcourse) so prior sins were paid for by
Jesus's suffering on the cross.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:27:17 +1000, Phill wrote:

> 
> "Norbert Nemec" <Norbert.Nemec@gmx.de> wrote in message news:c8d2ee$nu6$3@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Phill wrote:
>>
>> >> Mike Swieton
>> >> __
>> >> But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common
>> >> humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?
>> >> - Mark Twain
>> >>
>> >
>> > Does that mean that prior to eighteen centuries ago,
>> > there were people praying for Satan?
>>
>> I think, that citation is based on the theological thesis that before that time, there was no point in praying for sinners at all.
> 
> Ah right, because when Jesus was crucified everyone
> started on a new slate(except Satan ofcourse) so prior sins were paid for by
> Jesus's suffering on the cross.

I think you're following the quote a bit much. I've always thought that the time (18 centuries) was there solely for emphasis, and that the salient was the "who has prayed for him" part. Perhaps I'm wrong; I don't have the context for that quote.

Mike Swieton
__
The Lord's Prayer is 66 words, the Gettysburg Address is 286 words, and there
are 1,322 words in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, government
regulations on the sale of cabbage total 26,911 words.
	- David McIntosh

"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar@b-online.gr> wrote in message news:c8dojk$2048$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:c8bjdv$1eun$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > "Sean Kelly" <sean@ffwd.cx> wrote in message news:c8bej6$181f$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > While I personally dislike get/set methods I do understand the
reasoning
> > > behind them.  They are a pre-emptive tactic to enable back-end changes without requiring user-side code changes.  However, properties in D pretty much eliminate the need for this tactic, as there is no
semantic
> > > difference between public variables and property methods.  It's worth noting that properties have been proposed as an addition to the next version of C++ (http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1611.pdf), probably for this exact reason.
> >
> > Someday, C++ may catch up with D <g>.
> >
> >
>
> I send an e-mail to Bjarne Stroustrup regarding the future of C++ now that
D
> is around the corner. He told me to leave him alone and go use D, and that C++ is not gonna change anytime soon (although he said it very politely).
>
> I guess some people never realize when their time is over.

I think that time is a looooooong way off.

"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar@b-online.gr> wrote in message news:c8dojk$2048$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:c8bjdv$1eun$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > "Sean Kelly" <sean@ffwd.cx> wrote in message news:c8bej6$181f$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > While I personally dislike get/set methods I do understand the reasoning behind them.  They are a pre-emptive tactic to enable back-end changes without requiring user-side code changes.  However, properties in D pretty much eliminate the need for this tactic, as there is no semantic difference between public variables and property methods.  It's worth noting that properties have been proposed as an addition to the next version of C++ (http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1611.pdf), probably for this exact reason.
> >
> > Someday, C++ may catch up with D <g>.
> >
> >
>
> I send an e-mail to Bjarne Stroustrup regarding the future of C++ now that D is around the corner. He told me to leave him alone and go use D, and that C++ is not gonna change anytime soon (although he said it very politely).
>
> I guess some people never realize when their time is over.

When will that be, then? 2030?