Walter Bright wrote:
> "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dvs65b$1dee$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>How about: D - Work smarter, not harder.
>>?
> 
> 
> It's too vague. Remember the Java one - "write once, run everywhere"? That was very effective. Need something like that for D.
> 
> C++'s catchphrase was originally "C with Classes", and later "A better C."
> 
> Andrei sent me a list of what pops in his head when he thinks about a language:
> --------------------
> 1. FORTRAN. "First high-level language for scientific computing"
> 2. LISP. "Lambda. Garbage collection. S-expressions."
> 3. C. "Portable, efficient assembler. Systems programming"
> 4. C++. "Multiparadigm"
> 5. Perl. "Regular expressions. String manipulation."
> 6. Java. "Virtual Machine (= Write Once, ...). Safety."
> 7. Smalltalk. "Pure object-oriented."
> 8. Haskell. "Functional. Type inference."
> 9. Eiffel. "Contracts."
> -------------------------
> 
> "A better C++" - don't want to copy Bjarne
> "C++ reloaded" - too hollywood
> "C++ version 2" - <g>
> "C++ - we can rebuilt it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish
> "C++ streamlined" - ?
> 

(C++)++

Walter Bright wrote:
> "A better C++" - don't want to copy Bjarne
> "C++ reloaded" - too hollywood
> "C++ version 2" - <g>
> "C++ - we can rebuilt it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish
> "C++ streamlined" - ? 

How about "Beyond C++"

Brad Anderson wrote:

> (C++)++

Already taken...

(C++)++ = C++++ = C++ = C# = C♯
                   ++

--anders

Walter Bright wrote:

> "A better C++" - don't want to copy Bjarne
> "C++ reloaded" - too hollywood
> "C++ version 2" - <g>
> "C++ - we can rebuilt it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish
> "C++ streamlined" - ? 

Isn't it possible to define D without C++ as a comparison ?

It seems to always be: better than C++ at this, better than
C++ at that, and so on. Just seems like envy, after a while...

Other than that, I'm all for a little (justified) C++ bashing.

--anders

In article <dvsboj$1l3m$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>
>
>"pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dvs65b$1dee$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> How about: D - Work smarter, not harder.
>> ?
>
>It's too vague. Remember the Java one - "write once, run everywhere"? That was very effective. Need something like that for D.
>
>C++'s catchphrase was originally "C with Classes", and later "A better C."
>
>Andrei sent me a list of what pops in his head when he thinks about a language:
>--------------------
>1. FORTRAN. "First high-level language for scientific computing"
>2. LISP. "Lambda. Garbage collection. S-expressions."
>3. C. "Portable, efficient assembler. Systems programming"
>4. C++. "Multiparadigm"
>5. Perl. "Regular expressions. String manipulation."
>6. Java. "Virtual Machine (= Write Once, ...). Safety."
>7. Smalltalk. "Pure object-oriented."
>8. Haskell. "Functional. Type inference."
>9. Eiffel. "Contracts."
>-------------------------
>
>"A better C++" - don't want to copy Bjarne
>"C++ reloaded" - too hollywood
>"C++ version 2" - <g>
>"C++ - we can rebuilt it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish
>"C++ streamlined" - ?
>
>

Here's a few I came up with:
----------------------------
Get more from less code: "Readability, Performability, Maintainability!" (RPMs)
D makes the complex...simple.
Focus more on the end result, while writing less code to get there.

David L.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html

Here some from me.


1) The best D you will ever get in programming.
(yea, like the one on the D page)
2) Write once and unit test everything.
3) With D you don't need a debugger.
(That's when Walter add null ref. check and/or call log)
4) D the fastest way to fast code.
5) Real men/programmers know how to do D.
6) Get D !/?
7) It is programming but not as we know it.
8) Basic safety and FORTRAN speed.


On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:00:18 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> If you could  sum up the essence of D in a "high concept", what would it be?
> 
> http://www.themegahitmovies.com/highconcept.htm
> 
> Some particularly bad ones:
> 
> 1) Write once, debug everywhere
> 2) Tastes great, less filling.
> 3) Choosy programmers choose D.
> 4) C's dead, Jim.
> 5) So sophisticated, even we don't understand it.
> 6) Resistance is useless.
> 
> Some marginally better ones:
> 
> 1) Power, Performance, Productivity

Knud Sørensen wrote:
> Here some from me.

> 4) D the fastest way to fast code.

/me likes

Fredrik Olsson wrote:
> 4. Everything useful but sets.


ROFL!!!!

> 4) D the fastest way to fast code.

This ones actually pretty cool.


Knud Sørensen wrote:
> Here some from me.
> 
> 
> 1) The best D you will ever get in programming. (yea, like the one on the D page) 2) Write once and unit test everything.
> 3) With D you don't need a debugger.  (That's when Walter add null ref. check and/or call log)
> 4) D the fastest way to fast code.
> 5) Real men/programmers know how to do D.
> 6) Get D !/?
> 7) It is programming but not as we know it. 8) Basic safety and FORTRAN speed.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:00:18 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> 
>>If you could  sum up the essence of D in a "high concept", what would it be?
>>
>>http://www.themegahitmovies.com/highconcept.htm
>>
>>Some particularly bad ones:
>>
>>1) Write once, debug everywhere
>>2) Tastes great, less filling.
>>3) Choosy programmers choose D.
>>4) C's dead, Jim.
>>5) So sophisticated, even we don't understand it.
>>6) Resistance is useless.
>>
>>Some marginally better ones:
>>
>>1) Power, Performance, Productivity
> 
> 

Knud Sørensen wrote:
> 7) It is programming but not as we know it. 

I really like this, maybe like this:

D: Programming, but not as we know it. http://www.digitalmars.com/