>With respect, I see this as being rather naive. There is a lot of interest in D, and much of that stretches outside what's visible on this forum.

What did i say that was naive, i mentioned nor implied nothing on the interest of D, only that it is _time_ for some soldification.

>Hence D has a very good chance at becoming the best choice for a great many purposes, and I fail to see anything that is quickly subsuming that potential position.

I see potential as the keyword here, I want to move D from 'potential' to its rightful position at number one, and the only way I see that happening is with a solid 1.0.

>In my book, that's *well* worth sticking around and finding out.

Must you take every post as an oppurtunity for shameless self promotion ?  This isn't even a complete sentence.

>However, I agree that we need to get 1.0 happening, and I hope it can happen within the next 2-3 months. (I intend to get stuck into DTL in July in a big way, with a hope of DTL 1.0 shipping with D 1.0).

And I am happy for this :).

>What would be good would be if there were several non-trivial samples included in the 1.0 distribution.

JCC has a good tutorial/example base going at www.dsource.org , i think many of these would do well.

Charlie

In article <cbb4pn$1rd6$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>With respect, I see this as being rather naive. There is a lot of interest in D, and much of that stretches outside what's visible on this forum.
>
>While I believe C++ has a long and happy (albeit hard) future ahead of it, C++ is less and less accessible to people who are not already skilled in it. The other "modern" languages/technologies -which I assume you are alluding to - such as .NET and Java are not now, and never will, represent a viable alternative to C++ for the majority of its areas of strength. We will continue to have the choice of doing bulk of non-GUI, non Web-service work done in C or, for the brave/skilled/motivated, C++. This is where D comes in. D is *far* more accessible than C++, has relatively few flaws in comparison to the dumbed-down languages/technologies of Java and .NET, and will be nearly (IMO) as powerful/general-purpose as D.
>
>Hence D has a very good chance at becoming the best choice for a great many purposes, and I fail to see anything that is quickly subsuming that potential position. I think that chance is at least 20%, and probably around 40% or more. In my book, that's *well* worth sticking around and finding out.
>
>However, I agree that we need to get 1.0 happening, and I hope it can happen within the next 2-3 months. (I intend to get stuck into DTL in July in a big way, with a hope of DTL 1.0 shipping with D 1.0).
>
>What would be good would be if there were several non-trivial samples included in the 1.0 distribution. Any takers?? I'll commit to making reggrep robust and friendly if others will also contribute some samples.
>
>We also need to get a book on D, but's that's another story ... ;)
>
>
>"Charlie" <Charlie_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbatrq$1fu2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> As soon as their is a D implementation that is bug free, and usable  ( a complier must work 100% everytime), I will agree that D is more powerful than C++.
>>
>> I dont mean to be rude, and know that I love D and hope it will succeed, but I think the window of oppurtunity for D is rapdily shutting.  Its been what over
>3
>> years in development ?, and from my perspective its farther from 1.0 than it
>was
>> 4 months ago.  Am I alone in thinking we need _one_ solid release, that won't
>be
>> antiquated 3 months later ?  We ( by we I mean Walter :P ) could probably improve it , and add cool new features forever, and while I don't want to rush it, I'm afraid the clock is ticking.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> In article <cbag08$sai$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message news:cb99je$1ugm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> >> Philosophically: I'm not giving up on C++ yet and, while I am *very*
>> >enthusiastic
>> >> about D, I do not seeing it ever replace C++. I wouldn't worry about your
>> >having
>> >> those hard-won skills become redundant. C++ has a long life ahead of it,
>> >probably
>> >> about as long as D's. Where D does have the advantage, however, is that
>> >it's
>> >> easier to learn and teach, and has almost as much power as C++.
>> >
>> >D has a lot of powerful capabilities that are absent from C++. Why is C++ more powerful? I don't believe it is. For example, you can't do DbC, mixins, nested functions, delegates, etc., in C++. C++'s support for unicode is mostly a disaster. Using gc in C++ is only for experts.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Phew thats a load off, you'll hear no more complaing from me :).

C

In article <cbavs1$1j9h$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
>
>"Charlie" <Charlie_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbatrq$1fu2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> As soon as their is a D implementation that is bug free, and usable  ( a complier must work 100% everytime), I will agree that D is more powerful
>than
>> C++.
>>
>> I dont mean to be rude, and know that I love D and hope it will succeed,
>but I
>> think the window of oppurtunity for D is rapdily shutting.  Its been what
>over 3
>> years in development ?, and from my perspective its farther from 1.0 than
>it was
>> 4 months ago.  Am I alone in thinking we need _one_ solid release, that
>won't be
>> antiquated 3 months later ?  We ( by we I mean Walter :P ) could probably improve it , and add cool new features forever, and while I don't want to
>rush
>> it, I'm afraid the clock is ticking.
>
>I hear what you're saying, and I agree. What happened is it became clear that D needed a few more things in order to write the kind of code we need for it. My plan is to finish up the typeinfo changes. Thereafter it will be bug fixes and library work.
>
>

"Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote in message news:cbb5lh$1sh1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Matthew" wrote
> > What would be good would be if there were several non-trivial samples
> included in
> > the 1.0 distribution. Any takers??
>
> Uhhh ... there's a boat load of samples over at dsource.org, not to mention all the projects over there. I can't imagine you consider the latter to be trivial <g>

Great!

"Charlie" <Charlie_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbb6iv$1tuc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >With respect, I see this as being rather naive. There is a lot of interest in
D,
> >and much of that stretches outside what's visible on this forum.
>
> What did i say that was naive, i mentioned nor implied nothing on the interest of D, only that it is _time_ for some soldification.
>
> >Hence D has a very good chance at becoming the best choice for a great many purposes, and I fail to see anything that is quickly subsuming that potential position.
>
> I see potential as the keyword here, I want to move D from 'potential' to its rightful position at number one, and the only way I see that happening is with
a
> solid 1.0.
>
> >In my book, that's *well* worth sticking around and finding out.
>
> Must you take every post as an oppurtunity for shameless self promotion ?  This isn't even a complete sentence.

How about you shove your head up your arse?

"In my book" is phraseology for "In my opinion", or "from my point of view". Nothing more.

Charlie wrote:

>>In my book, that's *well* worth sticking around and finding out.
> 
> Must you take every post as an oppurtunity for shameless self promotion ?  This
> isn't even a complete sentence.

Grammatical advice from a guy who can't spell "opportunity".

James McComb

>How about you shove your head up your arse?

How about you take your head out of yours.

>"In my book" is phraseology for "In my opinion", or "from my point of view". Nothing more.

You'll forgive my mistake.

Charlie

In article <cbb9hh$21ts$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>
>"Charlie" <Charlie_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cbb6iv$1tuc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> >With respect, I see this as being rather naive. There is a lot of interest in
>D,
>> >and much of that stretches outside what's visible on this forum.
>>
>> What did i say that was naive, i mentioned nor implied nothing on the interest of D, only that it is _time_ for some soldification.
>>
>> >Hence D has a very good chance at becoming the best choice for a great many purposes, and I fail to see anything that is quickly subsuming that potential position.
>>
>> I see potential as the keyword here, I want to move D from 'potential' to its rightful position at number one, and the only way I see that happening is with
>a
>> solid 1.0.
>>
>> >In my book, that's *well* worth sticking around and finding out.
>>
>> Must you take every post as an oppurtunity for shameless self promotion ?  This isn't even a complete sentence.
>
>How about you shove your head up your arse?
>
>"In my book" is phraseology for "In my opinion", or "from my point of view". Nothing more.
>
>
>
>
>

>While I believe C++ has a long and happy (albeit hard) future ahead of it, C++ is less and less accessible to people who are not already skilled in it. The other "modern" languages/technologies -which I assume you are alluding to - such as .NET and Java are not now, and never will, represent a viable alternative to C++ for the majority of its areas of strength. We will continue to have the choice of doing bulk of non-GUI, non Web-service work done in C or, for the brave/skilled/motivated, C++. This is where D comes in. D is *far* more accessible than C++, has relatively few flaws in comparison to the dumbed-down languages/technologies of Java and .NET, and will be nearly (IMO) as powerful/general-purpose as D.
>
>Hence D has a very good chance at becoming the best choice for a great many purposes, and I fail to see anything that is quickly subsuming that potential position. I think that chance is at least 20%, and probably around 40% or more. In my book, that's *well* worth sticking around and finding out.

Hmm, currently there is no language avilable _for me_, that is a realy good
choice "for a great many purposes". A lot of things are just way to complicated
to do in languages like C++ and D. I'd love to have te expressivness and power
of languages like SML or OCaml. But there are other situations where I simply
want a larg OO-model and there C++ or D fit a lot better.
Imagine you want to write a function that simply doubles it's argument.
In ML it's no problem:

fun double x = 2 * x;


In C++ you can't even do it as you'd need a typeof to find the return-type. And even in D it's more complicated than it looks like, as the arguments of a function aren't in scope of the returntype (correct me if I'm wrong).

so it gets something like:

template TheReturnType(T) {
alias typeof(2*new T()) TheReturnType;
}

template doubleFunction (T)
{
TheReturnType!(T) doubleFunction (T value)
{
return 2*value;
}
}



I'd like a language that is somewhere inbetween D and SML.

In article <cbc56h$c1n$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
>
>Imagine you want to write a function that simply doubles it's argument. In ML it's no problem:
>
>fun double x = 2 * x;
>
>In C++ you can't even do it as you'd need a typeof to find the return-type.

Not true:

template<typename T>
T Double( T val ) { return val * 2; }

int x = 5;
x = Double( x );

And in D:

template(T) {
T Double( T val ) { return val * 2; }
}

int x = 5;
x = Double!(typeof(x))( x );


Template functions are one place where I still consider C++ superior to D.


Sean

>> 
>> oppurtunity
>
>Grammatical advice from a guy who can't spell "opportunity".
>

Not directed to the poster.

Many people just focus on the details and don't see the real issues. that's good for slashdot but here if we are going to insult each other and have a good old "food fight" let's be a little smarter.

:)

Ant
PS
of course "smarter" doesn't really expresses my idea. I want to say
something like "intelligente", "with more culture" and things like that
but I don't know the expression in this language.



















































after this line there is a line with just a dot (web interface)

Sean Kelly wrote:
> In article <cbc56h$c1n$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
> 
>>Imagine you want to write a function that simply doubles it's argument.
>>In ML it's no problem:
>>
>>fun double x = 2 * x;
>>
>>In C++ you can't even do it as you'd need a typeof to find the return-type.
> 
> 
> Not true:
> 
> [... code ...]
> 
> Template functions are one place where I still consider C++ superior to D.

This isn't quite what Mattias was getting at.  Here's a more general example of the same notion:

In ML:

    fun multiply x y = x * y;

And in D:

    template ReturnType(A, B) {
            alias typeof(A.init*B.init) ReturnType;
    }

    template multiply(A, B) {
            ReturnType!(A, B) multiply(A a, B b) {
                    return a * b;
            }
    }

This form will properly deduce the return type regardless of the types of A and B. (this is only an issue when they aren't the same)

C++ is utterly helpless in this regard, since it doesn't have typeof.

 -- andy