On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 04:52:31AM +0200, Flamaros wrote: [...]
> I work something like 6 month with Java on a Web server, and the pair with Eclipse is nice. Having tools like Unitests well integrated or auto-fix suggestion is really great, but that true Java just can't leave with a good IDE to generate verbose code. Java is also provide with a great Framework and majority of libraries are well licensed that help a lot to be productive.

One advantage Java has is widespread adoption and corporate support, which made it possible to have an extensive standard library (and many more 3rd party libraries) that can pretty much do anything you want -- you just have to put the pieces together. So in that sense you can get the job done "faster", because you don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. D isn't quite there yet, though that should get better once more people adopt D.

In terms of expressive power within the language itself, though, I think D is far better.


> Personally I can't be ok with a language that put performances on the side, and never allow to access the hardware, but before D a choice had to be done on which language is better for our future project.

Right, and D is still in development, which makes certain PTBs nervous about adoption, even if it is actually already production-ready for most common tasks. But that can only improve as we continue refining the language.


> For me D joins best of two worlds : productivity and effectiveness. This without any other tool than the compiler.

Yes, which is why I love D so much. All I need is a text editor and the compiler, and I can do everything. Even unittesting and coverage are all integrated. No need for external tools, no need to install a whole bunch of support software, all the essentials are bundled with the compiler. How much more compelling can it get?


T

-- 
"640K ought to be enough" -- Bill G., 1984.
"The Internet is not a primary goal for PC usage" -- Bill G., 1995.
"Linux has no impact on Microsoft's strategy" -- Bill G., 1999.

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.1184.1368231351.4724.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
> Now, *that* is not a good thing at all! When are we going to start moving towards bootstrapping D? Did any conclusions ever come of that discussion some time ago about how this might impact GDC/LDC?
>

We already are!  Check out pull requests tagged with [DDMD].

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote in message news:mailman.1188.1368237816.4724.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
> Excellent!!
>
> What about GDC/LDC though? Or are we hoping that the GCC (LDC) maintainers will be willing to accept a bootstrapping D compiler by the time we're ready to go pure D?
>

The GDC/LDC maintainers are onboard.  It is at least theoretically ok to have a frontend written in a language other than C/C++.

We also aren't going pure D, just the frontend.  The backend and glue layer will still be in C++.

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 19:55:58 UTC, sk wrote:
>> In any case, I totally agree that if a language *needs* an IDE in order to cope with the amount of required boilerplate, then something is clearly very, very wrong at a fundamental level.
>
> May be this is true for expert or professional programmers. But for people like me who only use D occasionally an IDE is a must.
>
> IDE mainly helps me in reducing the amount of things I need to memorize or remember like API, building tool names, command syntaxes, etc. This is very important as my main profession is not programming.
>

Especially since we aren't very good at API consistency.

On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 23:29:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> It turns out that this mysterious "stuck" state was caused by the stack
> trace code -- but not in any of the usual ways. In order to produce the
> trace, it uses fprintf to write info to the log, and fprintf in turn
> calls malloc at various points to allocate the necessary buffers to do
> that. Now, if for some reason free() segfaults (e.g., you pass in an
> illegal pointer), then libc is still holding the internal malloc mutex
> lock when the OS sends the SEGV to the process, so when the stack trace
> handler then calls fprintf, which in turn calls malloc, it deadlocks.
> Further SIGSEGV's won't help, since it only makes the deadlock worse.
>

This is the very reason why the NullPointerError handler build a fake stack frame and hijack the EIP register in order to NOT do that kind of stuff into the signal handler.

This is very confusing and must be put into some runtime code and never used directly by users.

On 5/11/13 2:49 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh"<hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx>  wrote in message
> news:mailman.1188.1368237816.4724.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>
>> Excellent!!
>>
>> What about GDC/LDC though? Or are we hoping that the GCC (LDC)
>> maintainers will be willing to accept a bootstrapping D compiler by the
>> time we're ready to go pure D?
>>
>
> The GDC/LDC maintainers are onboard.

Walter and I are also on board.

Andrei

On May 11, 2013 2:30 PM, "Andrei Alexandrescu" < SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/11/13 2:49 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>
>> "H. S. Teoh"<hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx>  wrote in message news:mailman.1188.1368237816.4724.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent!!
>>>
>>> What about GDC/LDC though? Or are we hoping that the GCC (LDC) maintainers will be willing to accept a bootstrapping D compiler by the time we're ready to go pure D?
>>>
>>
>> The GDC/LDC maintainers are onboard.
>
>
> Walter and I are also on board.
>
> Andrei

If the flurry of activity from myself, David and Daniel isn't a clear sign.  We are all on the same page.

Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

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

On Saturday, 11 May 2013 at 14:42:38 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On May 11, 2013 2:30 PM, "Andrei Alexandrescu" <
> SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/11/13 2:49 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> "H. S. Teoh"<hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx>  wrote in message
>>> news:mailman.1188.1368237816.4724.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excellent!!
>>>>
>>>> What about GDC/LDC though? Or are we hoping that the GCC (LDC)
>>>> maintainers will be willing to accept a bootstrapping D compiler by the
>>>> time we're ready to go pure D?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The GDC/LDC maintainers are onboard.
>>
>>
>> Walter and I are also on board.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> If the flurry of activity from myself, David and Daniel isn't a clear
> sign.  We are all on the same page.

We are indeed.

As far as LDC goes, upstream issues aren't a potential source of trouble, as we are not an official LLVM project anyway.

GDC is likely to be more of an issue in this regard, but I'll leave it to Iain to judge that.

David

On 05/11/2013 12:45 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> Yes, which is why I love D so much. All I need is a text editor and the
> compiler, and I can do everything. Even unittesting and coverage are all
> integrated. No need for external tools, no need to install a whole bunch
> of support software, all the essentials are bundled with the compiler.
> How much more compelling can it get?

I can get by with a hammer and nails too, but if I was a professional roofer I'd be an idiot not to use a nail gun. That's the problem with all this focus on boilerplate. An IDE does so much more to make you productive in any language, especially one that has static types.

On 5/11/2013 1:07 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> I can get by with a hammer and nails too, but if I was a professional roofer I'd
> be an idiot not to use a nail gun. That's the problem with all this focus on
> boilerplate. An IDE does so much more to make you productive in any language,
> especially one that has static types.

I didn't say an IDE was bad for D, I only said that if you need an IDE to generate boilerplate for you, then there's something wrong with the language.

IDE's have lots of other valuable uses.