Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Roberto Mariottini wrote:
<snip>
>> I'm still convinced that the big Java success was due to a standard library and a standard GUI. This was the boost that converted a little language to do web pages to one of the most used programming language in the world.

How did Java "do web pages" before it had a "standard GUI"?  Or are you
talking about server-side Java (JSP, servlets and the like)?

<snip>
> It started out with a small little language (that was Java 1.0) which changed greatly into the new language (Java 2). The GUI changed from the native AWT to the all-java Swing, more or less at the same time.

No it didn't.  It added Swing as an alternative to plain AWT.  Moreover, the Swing component classes are still derived from the root AWT classes.

> The Collections API also replaced the first simple array/hash classes. (for some reason they still left all the old stuff in too, deprecated)
<snip>

Yes, this "some reason" is, generally speaking, the exact raison d'être of deprecation.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Walter wrote:

>>The C++ world seems tremendously interested in using the
>>template/generic capability to write "Game Of Life" code. That's
>>bizarre.
> 
> 
> It's good that there are people who push the limits like that, it's the way
> progress is made. Some of that stuff is so 'out there' is it really even C++
> anymore? Is C++ just the 'machine code' of a new language layered on top of
> it?

Some of Boost, but especially this "Game of Life" business really is out there to show off. It's a shame that the in-built competitiveness in humans can sometimes turn to endeavours less worth than the effort.

The Eiffel tower, Statue of Liberty, WTC towers, having a newer car than your neighbor, unassisted deep diving world records. Awwwwwww.

What person in their right mind aspires for World Chess Champion? That capacity would be put to a lot more use for mankind in so many other ways. At least Larry Ellison gave us a database, as a side effect of his actual personal ambitions.

OTOH, if all this brain power and time would be used to improve on the C++ template system, instead of showing off _within_ it, then D'd be in for a much rougher ride!   :-)

Stewart Gordon wrote:

>> It started out with a small little language (that was Java 1.0) which changed greatly into the new language (Java 2). The GUI changed from the native AWT to the all-java Swing, more or less at the same time.
> 
> No it didn't.  It added Swing as an alternative to plain AWT.  Moreover, the Swing component classes are still derived from the root AWT classes.

I took some "liberties" explaining, this being a D newsgroup (not Java)

But most people seem to prefer Swing over the Awful Windowing Toolkit ?

>> The Collections API also replaced the first simple array/hash classes. (for some reason they still left all the old stuff in too, deprecated)
> 
> Yes, this "some reason" is, generally speaking, the exact raison d'être of deprecation.

Well, usually deprecating something means it will eventually go away ?

In Java's case, it seems like Vector and Hashtable are here forever...


Anyway, all of this is off-topic... :-)
(and I'm not really a Java expert)

I just meant that Java and Java 2 are really different beasts ?
And some say that JDK 1.5 really forms a new "Java 3" language.

--anders

Walter wrote:
> "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:42263C1C.5030009@nospam.org...
> 
>>Could this be (at least partially) alleviated with a Copy On Read
> 
> strategy?
> 
> Perhaps. But then it's gotta be fed back in.

Right! And it may be too much work to fix the general case.

In the mean time, one might get some success by restricting the effort to a manageable size. Eg.

 - only workable if the C++ and D coder are aware of each other
 - common data should be objects only
 - establish a simple how-to-program rule
 - KISS: limited applicability, but easy to code

I wonder if there are de facto practices already for this? If not, I might have an idea.

Oh, is there any real world use for this? Or do all cooperation projects really need the General solution?

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:03:58 +1100, Matthew wrote:

> Several times over the past few weeks I've said, in support of not-entirely-calm debates, that I don't feel that D is commercially ready.
> 
> Maybe the time has come for several/many of us to identify pet projects that we each have, and see if / how well some/all of them may be implemented in D.
> 
> For me, my projects are:

** Build
----------------
This is a utility to make compiling D applications a piece of cake. It is designed to remove the need for make files. Currently its at V1.9 (build #342) which is fairly stable now.  http://www.dsource.org/projects/build

** Euphoria-to-D translator
---------------------------
I love using the Euphoria language for applications that don't need
blistering speed (its an interpreted language). It is sort of like a
dynamically typed D. But there are two aspects that irk me though.
  (a) Sometimes a bit of speed is required, but not As Fast As Possible
type speed. So translating Euphoria to D then compiling the D code should
help speed up things.
  (b) It is not open source, and the "Walter"-type that controls its
evolution is really slow to add anything useful, and resists
'modernization'. Euphoria was designed in 1993 and is still only at v2.4.

So this is my first step in creating an open source version of a language translator. This will be a springboard for creating an alternative interpreter. Currently, I'm implementing the built-in data types (all four of them) supported by Euphoria - integer, atom, sequence and object. This is progressing well and I'm about 50% done with that phase.

** Windows Application Development Library
------------------------------------------
In Euphoria I've developed, with help from others, a *huge* library that makes developing Windows applications a whole lot easier. I would like to port this library, or at least what I've learned about developing Windows Apps, over to D.

I haven't started yet. But I do have 40,000+ lines of Euphoria code to work with ;-)

The "Hello World" program could look something like ...

 import winapp;
 int Application()
 {
   createForm("Window, Hello World",
              "Button, Close, Flag=autoclose" );
   return 0;
 }


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.dsource.org/projects/build
3/03/2005 11:28:11 PM

>> What? An IDE and a GUI. Do them yourself, let's do them all toghether,
>> find a
>> company that will do them, but do something.
>
> Many IDEs can be "persuaded" into supporting D, as well as C/C++/etc. And this with out redoing a full development environment from scratch? http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/xcode/
>
That looks nice for XCode.  Then for Visual Studio.NET there's DCoder, which could still use a little work, but looks promising: http://www.dsource.org/projects/dcoder/

Walter schrieb:

>>The questin is, what are you guys waiting for?

> That is a very good question. Is it some crucial feature/bug lacking
> preventing using it for a major project, or is it concern that the language
> will change enough to cause any D source today to undergo major rewrites?

I really like the idea of using D but it's much too unstable:

1. Too many known and (IMHO) critical bugs
2. New versions of D may break existing code due to introduction of new bugs (I really miss the QA - this seems to be too unprofessional)

Walter, you're a good developer but you should only publish new releases when you don't break existing (and syntactically error-free) code (DStress?)

Regards,
Mark

Walter wrote:

> I've found myself wondering over the last few months what "1.0" actually is.
> Since D will undergo continuous improvement regardless, why don't we just
> drive a stake in the ground and call what we have "1.0"?
> 

I think the most important component to woo C++/Java developers is Phobos. I have spoken with people who have shown an interest in D, but without a standard library that offers what they have come to take for granted most of them are hesitant to take the plunge.

For the C++ types, I think an STL equivalent is the big thing. To this end, I really believe either DTL or MinTL needs to be integrated into core Phobos as part of a 1.0 release. This will make people in both camps happy (Java developers love their Collections). In addition, I think Phobos needs an examination to work out wrinkles (missing functionality, bugs) and provide a more consistent interface. A good example of this is the publicly exposed bool and boolean aliases - the former being a bit and the latter, declared in std.loader, being an int (I understand the bit vs. int issue, but Phobos needs consistency). Finally, any external dependencies Phobos brings in need to be handled transparently - such as the requirements for libdl on linux when using std.loader, or ws2_32.lib on Windows when using the socket modules. It seems like such a minor point, but that's exactly the sort of thing people nitpick about ("It's the friggin core library, why do I need to link in anything else to use it?").

Language features and syntax are quite persuasive, but for many Phobos is going to be the maker or breaker. It needs to be solid, bug free, consistent, and provide enough functionality that people will feel comfortable saying goodbye to the STL and the Java API. Relying on 3rd party libs to provide a large portion of that is not the way to go, IMO.

Mike Parker wrote:

> I think the most important component to woo C++/Java developers is Phobos. I have spoken with people who have shown an interest in D, but without a standard library that offers what they have come to take for granted most of them are hesitant to take the plunge.
> 
> For the C++ types, I think an STL equivalent is the big thing. To this end, I really believe either DTL or MinTL needs to be integrated into core Phobos as part of a 1.0 release. This will make people in both camps happy (Java developers love their Collections).

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't both of STL and Collections
added long after the initial releases of those two languages ?

Phobos does need some work, though. And updated documentation.


But waiting until it has a full TL (template library) and a
full WT (Widget Toolkit), until D 1.0 can be released/frozen ?

Just afraid it would delay D's release for another 5 years...

--anders

In article <d07f6a$3pt$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...
>

>Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't both of STL and Collections added long after the initial releases of those two languages ?
>

It doesn't matter. What counts it's what D is up against now, not some years ago.

Ant