On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 20:36:46 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 10/7/13 12:47 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 19:34:11 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
>>> while I got a chuckle out of "D is what C++ wanted to be.", I might
>>> omit this. Insulting C++ isn't likely a great way to attract the C++
>>> crowd, which is one of our major target audiences.
>>
>> Quite the contrary, I can't really imagine many good C++ developers who
>> don't insult this language on their own :) Its problems are quite
>> well-known and widely accepted.
>>
>> Though saying that D already _is_ what C++ wanted to be is a bit
>> ambitious. Probably more appropriate is to say that it was one of main
>> motivations / design goals.
>
> I agree that the definition is a tad offensive to some, and inaccurate. It also gratuitously frames in a limiting way D's charter itself. I don't think C++ has ever aimed to be a convenient language for scripts that build fast and run fast, for example.
>
> OP: any chance to adjust that page? Then we'll announce to reddit.

Too early for more publicity, I think.

You guys have convinced me about that C++ reference. D should not be defined in terms of another language.

On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 22:00:53 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> A note on memory management: you can do your own reference counting with structs, and it works reasonably well.

Port shared_ptr (or intrusive_ptr) to D?

On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 19:18:40 UTC, qznc wrote:
> I believe one of the things D needs right now is more documentation. Therefore, I started writing a tutorial.
>
> It is aimed at people who can already program well in other languages. This means nothing about loops or structs, because I expect most people to know this stuff. I do not consider D to be a language for beginners anyways.
>
> It is aiming for pragmatic not comprehensive advice. For example, I mostly ignore LDC and GDC except for the optimization chapter.
>
> Since I am working on Linux exclusively and I like the command line, I cannot teach to Windows users. Sorry.
>
> This is still very incomplete and my our newborn family member requires quite some attention. So expect this to develop with glacial speed. ;)
>
> Nevertheless, I want to put this version 0.1 out to get some feedback. What do you think about the topic selection? What topics are missing? Serious errors so far?
>
> http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/index.html
>
> Wreck it! :)

"Sometimes D is criticised, because it is not simple language, in contrast to Go, Rust, Lisp, or Scala. However, a D programmer sees no problem and actually likes his big toolbox."

I wouldn't call any of those languages simple, except for Go. Maybe Go, C, Scheme, Python?

On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 21:47:13 +0200
"Dicebot" <public@dicebot.lv> wrote:

> On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 19:34:11 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
> > while I got a chuckle out of "D is what C++ wanted to be.", I might omit this. Insulting C++ isn't likely a great way to attract the C++ crowd, which is one of our major target audiences.
> 
> Quite the contrary, I can't really imagine many good C++ developers who don't insult this language on their own :) Its problems are quite well-known and widely accepted.
> 

Yea. And it's not as if it's worded like "D is the programming salvation that the steaming turd C++ only wishes in its pathetic dreams it could be." *THAT* is what "insulting" means.

But no, it's just simply "D is what C++ wanted to be": It's a very accurate, meaningful, succinct summary that gets across the gist of D. D really *is*, very much, a redesigned C++. There's no shame in that, and there's nothing wrong with stating that reality.

And sure, there may be *more* to D than that, but it's just a one-sentence *summary* - it doesn't need to be 100%. It only needs to paint a rough picture. And the sentence does a great job of that.

In any case, comparisons are perfectly valid and *not* equivalent to tossing insults, so let's not be flower children about this.

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 02:29:32 +0200
"Meta" <jared771@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 19:18:40 UTC, qznc wrote:
> > I believe one of the things D needs right now is more documentation. Therefore, I started writing a tutorial.
> >
> > It is aimed at people who can already program well in other languages. This means nothing about loops or structs, because I expect most people to know this stuff. I do not consider D to be a language for beginners anyways.
> >
> > It is aiming for pragmatic not comprehensive advice. For example, I mostly ignore LDC and GDC except for the optimization chapter.
> >
> > Since I am working on Linux exclusively and I like the command line, I cannot teach to Windows users. Sorry.
> >
> > This is still very incomplete and my our newborn family member requires quite some attention. So expect this to develop with glacial speed. ;)
> >
> > Nevertheless, I want to put this version 0.1 out to get some feedback. What do you think about the topic selection? What topics are missing? Serious errors so far?
> >
> > http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/index.html
> >
> > Wreck it! :)
> 
> "Sometimes D is criticised, because it is not simple language, in contrast to Go, Rust, Lisp, or Scala. However, a D programmer sees no problem and actually likes his big toolbox."
> 
> I wouldn't call any of those languages simple, except for Go. Maybe Go, C, Scheme, Python?

Lisp is practically the definition of language minimalism, AIUI. But I'd maybe replace Rust/Python with JavaScript. JavaScript is extremely simple. (Which is a large part of what makes using it such a pain, but I digress.)

On 10/8/13, Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe@semitwist.com> wrote:
> Yea. And it's not as if it's worded like "D is the programming salvation that the steaming turd C++ only wishes in its pathetic dreams it could be." *THAT* is what "insulting" means.

There are pictures of C with a broken back and a C++ anchor at the bottom of the ocean (i guess implying that programming in C++ is a drag) in the docs:

http://digitalmars.com/d/1.0/ctod.html http://digitalmars.com/d/1.0/cpptod.html

I find them to be very amusing though. :P

On 10/07/2013 03:18 PM, qznc wrote:
> I believe one of the things D needs right now is more documentation.
> Therefore, I started writing a tutorial.

> http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/index.html


Thanks for writing that. I found it useful already.

It would be nice if there is a "Last Updated" date mentioned somewhere, may be in the footer..

On 2013-10-07 21:18, qznc wrote:
> I believe one of the things D needs right now is more documentation.
> Therefore, I started writing a tutorial.

For GUI libraries there's DWT as well. Works on Windows and Linux, uses native drawing and doesn't have any runtime dependencies expect for the system libraries.

https://github.com/d-widget-toolkit/dwt

Small detail. On the Hello World page, this text:

"The nice fact about rdmd is that it finds additional files automatically and links them"

You should replace "links" with "compiles".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-10-07 21:18, qznc wrote:
> I believe one of the things D needs right now is more documentation.
> Therefore, I started writing a tutorial.

Run-time errors

You might want to add that D automatically handles uncaught exceptions and prints a stacktrace when one is thrown.

Optimization

I think it's worth mentioning that DMD is faster at compiling your code compared to GDC and LDC.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/philosophy.html
Nick's quote with alien woodwork(?) terminology looks not good. An IT professional as a foreign learner may not encounter such words for his entire life (all other text around it looks fine).