On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 15:10:25 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> ...

Interesting article. And I think it would be nice if that teacher had taken a pool asking what they think after finishing with D vs C/C++ which they learned before.

Oh and I'm curious about what compiler they're using, DMD maybe? I think this should be pointed out since he talked about the performance issues on machines with less than 2GB of RAM.

By the way English isn't my first language but I think there is a small typo:

"In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not required."

I think it's missing the word "example":

"In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are not required."

Finally I think the blog should get rid of this style:

.site-content article {
word-wrap: break-word;
-moz-hyphens: auto;
hyphens: auto;
}

For me it's very distracting thing.

Matheus.

On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 17:33:07 UTC, matheus wrote:
> By the way English isn't my first language but I think there is a small typo:
>
> "In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not required."
>
> I think it's missing the word "example":
>
> "In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are not required."

I think it is fine as is.

On 2/19/2022 12:26 PM, Elronnd wrote:
> I think it is fine as is.

So do I. I enjoy the unusual phrasings some ESL people use. For example, a long time ago in a circle of friends of mine one ESL person would say things like:

   "time for go" instead of "time to go"
   "make some shoppings" instead of "go shopping"

and the circle just adopted his way of saying things. I find myself still doing it :-)

On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 20:26:45 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 17:33:07 UTC, matheus wrote:
>> By the way English isn't my first language but I think there is a small typo:
>>
>> "In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not required."
>>
>> I think it's missing the word "example":
>>
>> "In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are not required."
>
> I think it is fine as is.

Yes, this is a perfectly correct use of "for" as a coordinating conjunction. [1] It may come across as a bit formal or old-fashioned, though—in normal speech, you'd usually use "since".

[1] https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/coordconj/

On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:44:42 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> Yes, this is a perfectly correct use of "for" as a coordinating conjunction. [1] It may come across as a bit formal or old-fashioned, though—in normal speech, you'd usually use "since".
>
> [1] https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/coordconj/

Interesting, since English is not my first language, if in that sentence instead of "for" there was the word "since", I wouldn't have been bothered, but since it was the first time I saw the usage of "for" in that way, I found awkward.

After that I even look into a translator which gave the same translation with "since" and "for" in that sentence.

Well living and learning. :)

Matheus.

On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 04:38:46 UTC, matheus wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:44:42 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>> Yes, this is a perfectly correct use of "for" as a coordinating conjunction. [1] It may come across as a bit formal or old-fashioned, though—in normal speech, you'd usually use "since".
>>
>> [1] https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/coordconj/
>
> Interesting, since English is not my first language, if in that sentence instead of "for" there was the word "since", I wouldn't have been bothered, but since it was the first time I saw the usage of "for" in that way, I found awkward.
>
> After that I even look into a translator which gave the same translation with "since" and "for" in that sentence.
>
> Well living and learning. :)
>
> Matheus.

And this is 'Chaos' for us, poor ESL people ...

http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html

:-P

On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 03:44:42 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 20:26:45 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
>> On Saturday, 19 February 2022 at 17:33:07 UTC, matheus wrote:
>>> By the way English isn't my first language but I think there is a small typo:
>>>
>>> "In D, such nuances are fewer, for header files are not required."
>>>
>>> I think it's missing the word "example":
>>>
>>> "In D, such nuances are fewer, for example header files are not required."
>>
>> I think it is fine as is.
>
> Yes, this is a perfectly correct use of "for" as a coordinating conjunction. [1] It may come across as a bit formal or old-fashioned, though—in normal speech, you'd usually use "since".
>
> [1] https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/coordconj/

for the benefit of ESL people, yes the two phrases are both grammatically correct, but they do have different meanings. 'For' here has a sense of 'because', implying the non-requirement of header files is the main reason. When we say 'for example', it's indicating one of a number of reasons.