http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/basics.html
One important C#-specific difference is that there's no using statement (which is quite viral in C# as a way of resource management), and scope statement can be used instead of it.

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 01:38:09 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 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.)

To clarify, I'm thinking of Common Lisp, which is definitely NOT a minimalist language.

http://gotlisp.com/
http://www.dreamsongs.net/Files/clcrit.pdf

Before C++11 it could even be possible to say that CL was almost as large as C++ in its feature set. Scheme is the minimalist Lisp; its spec is only 50 pages long.

As for Javascript, I would say that it's a "simple" language in the sense that it doesn't have a lot of features. However, all the sharp corners of the language create a large amount of complexity, and you have the whole thing with prototypical inheritance... Not to mention the new ES6 features being added.

I haven't really thought about this before, but it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to come up with a contemporary simple language. It seems most modern languages are creeping towards more complexity.

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

The URL above is not updated. I put it on Github, so it gets a canonical URL via Github pages now:

http://qznc.github.io/d-tut/index.html

Some of your feedback is already integrated. Thanks!

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 13:59:22 UTC, Meta wrote:
> I haven't really thought about this before, but it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to come up with a contemporary simple language. It seems most modern languages are creeping towards more complexity.

More simple languages are SML (one page of formal semantics) and Forth (most simple to implement on bare metal). Maybe Lua could be included.

http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/documentation.html
Are doxygen comments still endorsed?

http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/idiomatic.html
Describing a range as a pair of iterators requires a reader with C++ background; the beginning of the tutorial implied wider audience. For other people it can be not informative or misleading.

http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/gui.html
Do Qt bindings really work? I heard complaints about them.

I used the QT bindings to make a transparent desktop widget once. So they have worked but I'm not sure if they do with the current compiler. I'll see if I can find my old code and see what I have to do to get it to work.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Kagamin <spam@here.lot> wrote:

> http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-**0.1/documentation.html<http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/documentation.html> Are doxygen comments still endorsed?
>
> http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-**0.1/idiomatic.html<http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/idiomatic.html>
> Describing a range as a pair of iterators requires a reader with C++
> background; the beginning of the tutorial implied wider audience. For other
> people it can be not informative or misleading.
>
> http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-**0.1/gui.html<http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/gui.html> Do Qt bindings really work? I heard complaints about them.
>

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 at 07:04:07 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/documentation.html
> Are doxygen comments still endorsed?

I am not aware about any counter arguments. Are there some downsides? I noticed that "Returns:" is rarely used in Phobos.

> http://beza1e1.tuxen.de/d-tut-0.1/idiomatic.html
> Describing a range as a pair of iterators requires a reader with C++ background; the beginning of the tutorial implied wider audience. For other people it can be not informative or misleading.

Good point.

On 2013-10-09 10:37, qznc wrote:

> I am not aware about any counter arguments. Are there some downsides? I
> noticed that "Returns:" is rarely used in Phobos.

D has built-in support for documentation comments, called ddoc:

http://dlang.org/ddoc

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 13:59:22 UTC, Meta wrote:
> I haven't really thought about this before, but it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to come up with a contemporary simple language. It seems most modern languages are creeping towards more complexity.

I heard, Lua interpreter implementation is very small, if this counts as simplicity.

On Oct 9, 2013 12:31 PM, "Kagamin" <spam@here.lot> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 13:59:22 UTC, Meta wrote:
>>
>> I haven't really thought about this before, but it's becoming
increasingly difficult for me to come up with a contemporary simple language. It seems most modern languages are creeping towards more complexity.
>
>
> I heard, Lua interpreter implementation is very small, if this counts as
simplicity.

Size is by no means whatsoever a valid counter for simplicity.

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';