Dave wrote:
> In article <dpulrv$eo1$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
> 
>>Ben Hinkle has been around for awhile too... Mathematics seems to be his background training (he has some Phd degree or something... you know, "Post-hole digger"?) ;).  But I don't know how much involvement he had in working on these things although he's contributed much to D.
>>
> 
> 
> "Post-hole digger", LOL.
> 

LOL!  I totally missed that in my reply... Long day of work... urgh

> I've always been told it /really/ means "Piled higher and Deeper". <g>
> 
> B.S. - just that
> M.S. - More of the Same
> PhD. - Piled higher and Deeper
> 
> 
>>-JJR
> 

This brings back memories of one professor in particular who just thought that being a Systems Analyst with a PhD was about the best job you could get.  He had this horrible cirlce-enclosing-circle-enclosing-circle diagram that he used to "prove" the difference between a technician, an engineer, and a PhD - want to strangle myself already just recalling it...

Dave wrote:
> In article <dpulrv$eo1$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>> Ben Hinkle has been around for awhile too... Mathematics seems to be his background training (he has some Phd degree or something... you know, "Post-hole digger"?) ;).  But I don't know how much involvement he had in working on these things although he's contributed much to D.
>>
> 
> "Post-hole digger", LOL.
> 
> I've always been told it /really/ means "Piled higher and Deeper". <g>
> 
> B.S. - just that
> M.S. - More of the Same
> PhD. - Piled higher and Deeper
> 
>> -JJR
> 
> 


:-D

I've heard of the "Piled higher and Deeper" one too.  Maybe "Post hole Digger" sticks more readily for me because that's exactly what I used to do, in the real sense of the phrase, in my younger days. Hey, there's nothing wrong with post hole digging! We all find purpose somewhere. :-)

That list,above, is priceless, Dave.  I don't think I've ever seen it summarized quite like that.

-JJR

James Dunne wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> James Dunne wrote:
>>
>>> Don Clugston wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What else is stopping the adoption of D where you work (Kris and anyone else)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that D cannot use third party DLLs that only come with COFF import libs. No kidding. It's an absolute show stopper.
>>>> Walters last post to this newsgroup has changed this situation completely. Bye-bye C++.
>>>>
>>>> (But I'm not really a programmer, it's only a small part of what I do. I'm employed for my knowledge of semiconductor device physics. My choice of programming language doesn't get much more attention than my choice of soldering iron. Noone has looked at any of my source code for about five years).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No wonder you're a mathematical template-programming freak! =P  (This is a good thing).

By a freak combination of events, I was in the local newspapers last week (has never happened before, will probably never happen again), so
you can get an idea of what I look like and what I do:

http://www.mz-web.de/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=ksta/page&atype=ksArtikel&aid=1135666230139&calledPageId=987490165154

Does that look like a computer scientist to you?? Does it even look like
a mathematician???

The only subjects I failed at university were optics and electronics, so
solar cells was the obvious career path  :-)

>>> We need someone knowledgeable about numerical analysis to come in and fix the implementation and usage of floating point. Walter's already got a great start by separating real and ireal; now we need to propogate that down the line through the standard library/ies.
>>

It's the real.nan, real.infinity and the NCEG operators that got me interested in D. Walter's done an amazing job at exposing the full glory of IEEE mathematics (better than asm, even!)
It deserves *much* better library support. I would like to see the D standard libraries providing at least as good mathematical support as VBA does in Excel...

There's a work-in-progress in dsource/mathextra. Some will be in DMD 0.143. The elementary functions sin(), exp(), etc for complex arguments are probably a necessity for D 1.0, and will be moved into Phobos as soon as D gets rid of the problematic implicit conversions real->creal, etc.

>> Ben Hinkle has been around for awhile too... Mathematics seems to be his background training (he has some Phd degree or something... you know, "Post-hole digger"?) ;).  But I don't know how much involvement he had in working on these things although he's contributed much to D.

I always thought that PhD stood for "permanent head damage".
Ben seems to be almost completely occupied with Cx now, unfortunately.

> Didn't mean to single anybody out.  Yes, Ben Hinkle is also quite the contributor, but as of the last month or so, Don has really gotten quite excited about template meta-programming.  Just an observation :)

My #1 reluctance towards D came from the belief that D templates were much less powerful than C++ templates. I have entirely abandoned that belief :-). I think that if there were a few solid metaprogramming examples in the spec, hardcore C++ programmers wouldn't dismiss D as readily.

"Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message news:dq0can$234k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> It's the real.nan, real.infinity and the NCEG operators that got me interested in D. Walter's done an amazing job at exposing the full glory of IEEE mathematics (better than asm, even!)

Back when I worked at Boeing, I wrote numerical analysis programs in FORTRAN. It's what made me interested in having good floating point support. Interestingly, about all this stuff was proposed for C at one time around 1990, but it fizzled for reasons I don't understand.

> It deserves *much* better library support. I would like to see the D standard libraries providing at least as good mathematical support as VBA does in Excel...

I agree.

> There's a work-in-progress in dsource/mathextra. Some will be in DMD 0.143. The elementary functions sin(), exp(), etc for complex arguments are probably a necessity for D 1.0, and will be moved into Phobos as soon as D gets rid of the problematic implicit conversions real->creal, etc.

Ok <g>.

> My #1 reluctance towards D came from the belief that D templates were much less powerful than C++ templates. I have entirely abandoned that belief :-). I think that if there were a few solid metaprogramming examples in the spec, hardcore C++ programmers wouldn't dismiss D as readily.

I still think there's a killer magazine article here you should write!

In article <dq10vh$2n82$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>
>"Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message news:dq0can$234k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> It's the real.nan, real.infinity and the NCEG operators that got me interested in D. Walter's done an amazing job at exposing the full glory of IEEE mathematics (better than asm, even!)
>
>Back when I worked at Boeing, I wrote numerical analysis programs in FORTRAN. It's what made me interested in having good floating point support. Interestingly, about all this stuff was proposed for C at one time around 1990, but it fizzled for reasons I don't understand.
>
>> It deserves *much* better library support. I would like to see the D standard libraries providing at least as good mathematical support as VBA does in Excel...
>
>I agree.
>
>> There's a work-in-progress in dsource/mathextra. Some will be in DMD 0.143. The elementary functions sin(), exp(), etc for complex arguments are probably a necessity for D 1.0, and will be moved into Phobos as soon as D gets rid of the problematic implicit conversions real->creal, etc.
>
>Ok <g>.
>
>> My #1 reluctance towards D came from the belief that D templates were much less powerful than C++ templates. I have entirely abandoned that belief :-). I think that if there were a few solid metaprogramming examples in the spec, hardcore C++ programmers wouldn't dismiss D as readily.
>
>I still think there's a killer magazine article here you should write!
>
>


well i am glad that you guys have something to share. how about something usable

for the rest of the world.
a debugger,
gui developer,
and a lib for the all of us who do not specialize in math

???

rko


rko

rko wrote:

> In article <dq10vh$2n82$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>>
>>
>>"Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message news:dq0can$234k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> It's the real.nan, real.infinity and the NCEG operators that got me interested in D. Walter's done an amazing job at exposing the full glory of IEEE mathematics (better than asm, even!)
>>
>>Back when I worked at Boeing, I wrote numerical analysis programs in FORTRAN. It's what made me interested in having good floating point support. Interestingly, about all this stuff was proposed for C at one time around 1990, but it fizzled for reasons I don't understand.
>>
>>> It deserves *much* better library support. I would like to see the D standard libraries providing at least as good mathematical support as VBA does in Excel...
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>> There's a work-in-progress in dsource/mathextra. Some will be in DMD 0.143. The elementary functions sin(), exp(), etc for complex arguments are probably a necessity for D 1.0, and will be moved into Phobos as soon as D gets rid of the problematic implicit conversions real->creal, etc.
>>
>>Ok <g>.
>>
>>> My #1 reluctance towards D came from the belief that D templates were
>>> much less powerful than C++ templates. I have entirely abandoned that
>>> belief
>>> :-). I think that if there were a few solid metaprogramming examples in
>>> the spec, hardcore C++ programmers wouldn't dismiss D as readily.
>>
>>I still think there's a killer magazine article here you should write!
>>
>>
> 
> 
> well i am glad that you guys have something to share. how about something usable
> 
> for the rest of the world.
> a debugger,
> gui developer,
> and a lib for the all of us who do not specialize in math
> 
> ???
> 
> rko
> 
> 
> rko

I don't specialize in maths and find what's already present in the D realm highly usable. If I miss something, I either asks politely someone that seems to be into said subject, or try to fix it myself. As is pointed ut millions of times, Walter has only to arms, even though he has 50 fingers on each.

Lars Ivar Igesund

Dave wrote:
> In article <dpci28$nq$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
> 
> (Was: Re: Implementation-hiding clarification)
> 
> All points well taken Kris; implementation hiding is an important topic, but I
> just don't have anything worthwhile to add. (Not trying to change or confuse the
> subject, just start a new thread because you brought up another vital point.)
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> We should all understand that there's a lot of inertia against change in IT. 
> 
> Ain't that the truth.
> 
> I could use the features of D as an improvement over ksh/perl/C/++ for quite a
> bit of what I happen to be doing right now, but I don't think it would fly...
> Even if they would let me re-compile GCC with D built-in (dmd won't run on this
> platform), I don't think I could develop anything but throw-away code right now
> just because of the potential need for someone else to maintain it, and because
> there is not any sort of formal training offered for D, which is a big thing
> where I'm at right now.
> 
> Somehow D has to achieve that "buzz-word" status. How to do that? Writing
> articles is one way to help - what else?
> 
>> To get a foot into the commercial segment, D needs as much help as it can possibly get in order to avoid being marginalized ~ even just keeping the darned lawyers out of the way. Implementation-hiding is one such aspect that 
> 
> I agree (not that I'm any more clear on how to actually accommodate mechanical
> implementation-hiding).
> 
> "To get a foot into the commercial segment..." is one of the big reasons I'm a
> stickler about RT perf. "out of the box" if you will (meaning both good
> optimization and a language that doesn't get in the way). Everything I've been
> doing the last 5 years has demanded good performance and alot of time is spent
> on that. This is not a D weak point by any stretch, but I submit that D needs to
> stand-out in that area to get noticed.
> 
>> helps. I can tell you that D is /not/ being considered where I work. Hence, I have a beef with certain weak attributes of the language and tools.
> 
> What else is stopping the adoption of D where you work (Kris and anyone else)?
> 
> - Dave
> 
> 
Main Conclusion (in my opinion):
	Debugger
	Framework (multi platform)

Who

	D fundation or similar with A unique project and a lot of participants (D people working in a unique library... framework... the name is not important)... And Walter working in a real debugger...

	Something similar to "Mono project producing an alternative .Net platform"

When

	As son as possible.

Why

	Because there is a lot of languages produced as "the best one" that offers this 2 main features... and it is the best beginning for professional developments.
	Actually, I have to use Delphi or c++ for productivity reasons and it's impossible to convince that D is better... because this is false 90%... it could be different when only 50% is false :-)

thanks and sorry

"rko" <rko_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dq193m$2uvo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> how about something usable
>
> for the rest of the world.
> a debugger,
> gui developer,
> and a lib for the all of us who do not specialize in math
>
> ???

There's plenty of room for contributions!