> I can tell you the NG has been most influential with Walter on a number of
> important issues: structs, deterministic destruction (which, btw, neither
> Java/.NET have, despite the specious pretense of the using keyword), etc.
> etc.

We have deterministic destruction ?

C


On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:40:39 +1100, Matthew <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote:

>> You just, stopped at reading the good part, features of C# that I want in
> D.
>
> Which illustrates the point that you've just lost your audience.
>
>> Did you look at those attachments, that asked for?
>
> Not yet.
>
>> My target isn't you anyway, it is Mr. Walter Bright.
>
> Oh really? And do you think Walter went to the trouble of creating a
> language and initiaiting, and participating in, this newsgroup only to pay
> it no heed.
>
> I can tell you the NG has been most influential with Walter on a number of
> important issues: structs, deterministic destruction (which, btw, neither
> Java/.NET have, despite the specious pretense of the using keyword), etc.
> etc.
>
>> I appologize for any spelling mistakes.
>
> I have no problem with spelling mistakes. :)
>
>>  As for why I haven't backed some
>> of points like OO vs. procedural, those have already been backed up all
>> over the net.
>
> You've failed to address the point, *again*.
>
> *You* state that D should go all OO, and yet *you* can offer no evidence to
> back up your assertion.
>
> That's like me ringing up the folks at MS and telling them that they're OS
> is crap. They might, perhaps, enquire as to why I would think that. Were I
> then to say, "well everyone thinks so", I expect I'd hear a little click,
> and that would be that.
>
>> You have a right to state your opinion, just as I do.
>
> Indeed. But if you want anyone to listen to your opinion, you'd better offer
> more than just opinion and statements. Offer proof. Back up what you say. If
> you can't/won't, then get off the pot. You're just wasting everyone's time.
>
>
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:27:48 +1100, Matthew <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> You don't understand me.
>> >
>> > I think I(/we) do.
>> >
>> >>  I don't evangelize .NET; I evangelize some
>> >> features of C#/.NET that should be in D.
>> >
>> > If that is true, you need to rethink your presentation style, since to
> me
>> > your posts smack of the former, despite being individually presented 
>> as
>> > the
>> > latter
>> >
>> >> -I want D to succeed, because I want a native C# (since I don't know
>> >> what
>> >> mono is going to be, and it always is 2 years behind Microsoft).
>> >
>> > Good. Here's some common ground.
>> >
>> >> -I want you people to think out of the box!
>> >
>> > Don't be ridiculous, not to say insulting. You have some of the 
>> smartest
>> > people in the industry on this NG.
>> >
>> >>  C# was done by people
>> >> thinking out of the box.
>> >
>> > That's partly true. Another aspect was political (with both big and
> small
>> > P).
>> >
>> > Another aspect was, and I say this with some regret, to make 
>> programming
>> > more accessible to less competent people. I have witnessed this 
>> myself,
>> > whereby folks on C# and Java projects are happy to play with threads 
>> and
>> > other non-trivial concepts more than they would be in C/C++ because
>> > .NET/Java makes it easier for them to do so without making basic
>> > mistakes.
>> > However, the level of mistakes just moves to a higher level, evincing
>> > itself
>> > in bad design as opposed to broken code. To my mind, this barely
>> > represents
>> > a postive step.
>> >
>> > Writing software is the most complex activity man has undertaken. (It
> was
>> > quoted at the time that the Win2K os was the most complex machine ever
>> > created.) Do we really want less-talented people to be doing it?
>> >
>> >>  D has functions, so for those that want to use
>> >> functions, let them. -I like OO (used functions once), but found OO
>> > better.
>> >
>> > You used functions once. ROFL.
>> >
>> > Seriously, do you have any idea how that sounds? You just cut the legs
>> > out
>> > from any of your arguments.
>> >
>> > It's like someone who only speaks, say, Italian, saying that Italian 
>> is
>> > the
>> > only language worth knowing. "Oh sure, I learned a few phrases in 
>> French
>> > once, but you can't say as much in French as you can in Italian".
>> >
>> >
>> >> -I want D to have a library like delphi/.net has, full OO and 
>> component
>> >> based (modern design of class libraries). For C++ you have
>> >> vcf.sourceforge.net
>> >
>> > Can you explain why OO is better?
>> >
>> > I'm not saying a free-functions approach is better, or a fully generic
>> > approach, or whatever. But you are clearly making the point that an OO
> is
>> > superior, and I'm still waiting for you to offer some proof
>> >
>> >> -In .NET you can have classes in dlls, D can have them too, no one is
>> >> forcing you to use the dll format dictated by MS before .NET was
>> >> arround.
>> >
>> > I don't understand the point you're making here.
>> >
>> >> -Becaues C\C++ have been arround for a lot of time, it doesn't mean
> that
>> >> it is the best thing and stuff should still be done like that (that 
>> is
>> >> why
>> >> D has been invented).  Most people use Internet Explorer, is that the
>> >> best
>> >> browser? No.
>> >
>> > What has C/C++ got to do with anything? Are you saying that an OO
>> > approach
>> > cannot be supported by either of these languages, and/or that use of
>> > these
>> > languages forces one to adopt an entirely procedural approach? None of
>> > those
>> > are true. I have written object-oriented code in C, and modern C++ is 
>> an
>> > even balance between OO (including ADTs and runtime-polymorphism) and
>> > generics, with just a dash of procedural thrown in for good measure
>> >
>> > <ASIDE>C++ remains the best language at the moment because it ably
>> > supports
>> > *all* current programming paradigms (apart from functional, I guess,
>> > although some of the more abstruse meta techniques are moving in that
>> > direction). No other widely-used language can claim this, and the
> watered
>> > down attempts for generics in C# and Java are not going to come 
>> anywhere
>> > near allowing them to join the club. D aims to be the second one, and
>> > IMHO
>> > it stands a very good chance at doing so. If you would care to point 
>> out
>> > where this statement is wrong, I'll fry up my undies with a little 
>> extra
>> > virgin olive oil and eat them for dinner.</ASIDE>
>> >
>> >> - D isn't perfect, but it can be close to perfect if you people think
>> >> out
>> >> of the box for a minute.
>> >
>> > Again, you're being ridiculous, insulting and making fatuous blanket
>> > statements.
>> >
>> > At this point I've exhausted my reserve of interest. Apologies if you
>> > have
>> > some good points further down.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Matthew
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> - The delegate/event model of C# should be included in D because, it
>> >> makes
>> >> it very easy to work with event based programming.
>> >> - Methods/Properties should be PascalCase, it doesn't force you to 
>> use
>> >> _var m_var and other types of decoration.
>> >> - Indexers are cool since they allow you to use a class/struct like 
>> an
>> >> array:
>> >>
>> >> public class Building
>> >> {
>> >>      Story[] stories;
>> >>
>> >>      public  Story this[int index] //doesn't have to be int eg:
>> >> HashTable
>> >>      {
>> >>          get { return stories[index];
>> >>          set
>> >>          {
>> >>              if (value != null)
>> >>                  stories[index] = value;
>> >>          }
>> >>      }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> public class Test
>> >> {
>> >>      public static void Main()
>> >>      {
>> >>          Building myHouse = new Building();
>> >>          myHouse[10] = new Story("The last story");
>> >>      }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> - Operator overloading: It is easier to use the operators instead of
>> >> functions (eg: opAdd()) when overloding.
>> >>
>> >>   public static bool operator != (Bar x, Bar y) {
>> >> return x.value != y.value;
>> >>   }
>> >>
>> >> - Attributes: Attributes are super cool and developers should be able
> to
>> >> extend the language using attributes.
>> >>    Attributes in D should have a better syntax to show that those
> things
>> >> are different.  The reason why in C# they are [MyAttribute()] is
>> >> MyAttribute is a class and you can have [MyAttribute(argument1,
>> >> argument2,
>> >> argument3)]
>> >> class MyAttribute : FoobarAttribute
>> >> {
>> >>    // extend it
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> [MyAttribute()]
>> >>   expression
>> >>
>> >> - C# has nailed a lot of good stuff, they looked at many languages 
>> when
>> >> they made it. So D should have them too.
>> >> - Namespaces and strong named assemblies (with metadata about the
> types)
>> >> in dll format.  It is very anoying that you have to use the file
> system.
>> >> - No header files (assemblies with meta data that support classes).
>> >> - No more dozens of lines of ugly code to include a dll dynamically,
>> >> take
>> >> a look at the examples  Assembly.Load("mydll.dll"), use the classes 
>> in
>> >> it
>> >> with no problem.  A framework like that would be super cool in D.
>> >> - Take a look at this article
>> >> http://genamics.com/developer/csharp_comparative.htm and at the C#
>> >> Language Reference.  All that cool stuff should be included.  If 
>> there
>> >> is
>> >> another cool thing that another language has that isn't in C#, 
>> included
>> >> it
>> >> too. But C# is perfect in a lot of ways.  Right now D is doing it 
>> the C
>> >> way.
>> >> - You can't build apps as fast in C++/C/D as you can do in .NET with
> any
>> >> language (not as fast in Managed C++ since it has a lot of quircks).
>> >> - Learn from .NET, and make D development as easy as it is in .NET.  
>> It
>> >> currently isn't. It is less complicated than C++ but with the library
>> >> thing, it is just as worse (eg hard to load dlls, no classes, still,
>> >> libs,
>> >> headerfiles. ).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I have attached those files that were posted, even though they look
> fine
>> >> in Opera 7.5.  How come you can't see the tabs?
>> >>
>> >> This is the earlier post:
>> >>
>> >> Dude, in .NET you can do all that. For example at compile time i can
>> >> have
>> >> a dll with objects in it.  For example DigitalPlay.dll.
>> >>
>> >> namespace Test
>> >> {
>> >> using DigitalPlay.FoobarClient;
>> >>
>> >> class Testing
>> >> {
>> >>      public static void Main() {
>> >>       DigitalPlay.FoobarClient.Client foo = new
>> >> DigitalPlay.FoobarClient.Client();
>> >>       // or shortcut it since i sayed using...
>> >>       Client foo = new Client();
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> csc.exe Test.cs /resources:DigitalPlay.dll
>> >>
>> >> The compiler looks for types in the resources provided and links 
>> them,
>> >> No
>> >> *.lib, header files no nothing. For late binding, it is a little more
>> >> complicated:
>> >>
>> >> Interfaces.cs (dll)
>> >> PluginServices.cs (dll)
>> >> Plugin.cs (dll)
>> >> Main.cs (exe)
>> >> ***Attachment***
>> >>
>> >> Compilation
>> >> 1) Interfaces.dll
>> >> 2) PluginServices.dll (csc /target:library /resources:Interfaces.dll)
>> >> 4) Plugin.dll (csc.exe /target:library
>> >> /resources:Interface.dll;Pluginservices.dll)
>> >> 3) Main.exe (csc.exe Main.cs
>> >> /resources:Interfaces.dll;PluginServices.dll)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The code is self explanatory.
>> >>
>> >> I could have showed you this in a few lines, but insted I showed you 
>> a
>> >> full plugin system.  This also shows you the power of .NET types and
> how
>> >> they describe themselves.  If you do this crap the same as it has 
>> been
>> >> done before C-Like, that what is the point? Show some progress, damn
>> >> it. D
>> >> has potential, but you have to create a nice class library like .NET
> and
>> >> stop doing the C-way of doing things. D, a 21st century language with
>> >> the
>> >> mentality of 1970s.
>> >>
>> >> For a system api call i'd use
>> >> namespace Testing
>> >> {
>> >>    // using isn't import, it is a shortcut so you won't have to type
> the
>> >> whole thing
>> >>    using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
>> >>
>> >>    public class Tester
>> >>    {
>> >>      [DllImport("kernel32.dll")]
>> >>      private static extern bool FreeConsole();
>> >>      public static void Main()
>> >>      {
>> >>         FreeConsole();
>> >>      }
>> >>    }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> So yes, you can use CLASSES in DLLS and no shitty header files or lib
>> >> files.
>> >>
>> >> - This is for now, I'll post anything else that I forgot some other
>> >> time.
>> >> - I don't evangalize C# as something that should be used over D, I 
>> want
>> >> C#
>> >> features to be in D.
>> >> - There is one feature in D, that i'd like in C#, so i'll use for
>> >> instead:
>> >>    foreach (int i, char c; a)
>> >>    { ]
>> >>    In C# you don't have access to the index.
>> >>
>> >>    C#
>> >>    foreach (ElementType element in collection) { // statement}
>> >>
>> >>    translates into
>> >>
>> >>    IEnumerator enumerator =
>> >> ((System.IEnumerable)(collection)).GetEnumerator();
>> >>     try {
>> >>     while (enumerator.MoveNext()) {
>> >>        ElementType element = (ElementType)enumerator.Current;
>> >>        statement;
>> >>     }
>> >>    }
>> >> finally {
>> >>     IDisposable disposable = enumerator as System.IDisposable;
>> >>     if (disposable != null) disposable.Dispose();
>> >> }
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

We do: the auto keyword (used on the class and the declaration)


"C" <dont@respond.com> wrote in message news:opr3sxzwr7ehmtou@localhost...
> I can tell you the NG has been most influential with Walter on a number
> of
> important issues: structs, deterministic destruction (which, btw, neither
> Java/.NET have, despite the specious pretense of the using keyword), etc.
> etc.

We have deterministic destruction ?

C


On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:40:39 +1100, Matthew <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote:

>> You just, stopped at reading the good part, features of C# that I want in
> D.
>
> Which illustrates the point that you've just lost your audience.
>
>> Did you look at those attachments, that asked for?
>
> Not yet.
>
>> My target isn't you anyway, it is Mr. Walter Bright.
>
> Oh really? And do you think Walter went to the trouble of creating a
> language and initiaiting, and participating in, this newsgroup only to
> pay
> it no heed.
>
> I can tell you the NG has been most influential with Walter on a number
> of
> important issues: structs, deterministic destruction (which, btw, neither
> Java/.NET have, despite the specious pretense of the using keyword), etc.
> etc.
>
>> I appologize for any spelling mistakes.
>
> I have no problem with spelling mistakes. :)
>
>>  As for why I haven't backed some
>> of points like OO vs. procedural, those have already been backed up all
>> over the net.
>
> You've failed to address the point, *again*.
>
> *You* state that D should go all OO, and yet *you* can offer no evidence
> to
> back up your assertion.
>
> That's like me ringing up the folks at MS and telling them that they're
> OS
> is crap. They might, perhaps, enquire as to why I would think that. Were
> I
> then to say, "well everyone thinks so", I expect I'd hear a little click,
> and that would be that.
>
>> You have a right to state your opinion, just as I do.
>
> Indeed. But if you want anyone to listen to your opinion, you'd better
> offer
> more than just opinion and statements. Offer proof. Back up what you
> say. If
> you can't/won't, then get off the pot. You're just wasting everyone's
> time.
>
>
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:27:48 +1100, Matthew
>> <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> You don't understand me.
>> >
>> > I think I(/we) do.
>> >
>> >>  I don't evangelize .NET; I evangelize some
>> >> features of C#/.NET that should be in D.
>> >
>> > If that is true, you need to rethink your presentation style, since to
> me
>> > your posts smack of the former, despite being individually presented
>> as
>> > the
>> > latter
>> >
>> >> -I want D to succeed, because I want a native C# (since I don't know
>> >> what
>> >> mono is going to be, and it always is 2 years behind Microsoft).
>> >
>> > Good. Here's some common ground.
>> >
>> >> -I want you people to think out of the box!
>> >
>> > Don't be ridiculous, not to say insulting. You have some of the
>> smartest
>> > people in the industry on this NG.
>> >
>> >>  C# was done by people
>> >> thinking out of the box.
>> >
>> > That's partly true. Another aspect was political (with both big and
> small
>> > P).
>> >
>> > Another aspect was, and I say this with some regret, to make
>> programming
>> > more accessible to less competent people. I have witnessed this
>> myself,
>> > whereby folks on C# and Java projects are happy to play with threads
>> and
>> > other non-trivial concepts more than they would be in C/C++ because
>> > .NET/Java makes it easier for them to do so without making basic
>> > mistakes.
>> > However, the level of mistakes just moves to a higher level, evincing
>> > itself
>> > in bad design as opposed to broken code. To my mind, this barely
>> > represents
>> > a postive step.
>> >
>> > Writing software is the most complex activity man has undertaken. (It
> was
>> > quoted at the time that the Win2K os was the most complex machine ever created.) Do we really want less-talented people to be doing it?
>> >
>> >>  D has functions, so for those that want to use
>> >> functions, let them. -I like OO (used functions once), but found OO
>> > better.
>> >
>> > You used functions once. ROFL.
>> >
>> > Seriously, do you have any idea how that sounds? You just cut the legs
>> > out
>> > from any of your arguments.
>> >
>> > It's like someone who only speaks, say, Italian, saying that Italian
>> is
>> > the
>> > only language worth knowing. "Oh sure, I learned a few phrases in
>> French
>> > once, but you can't say as much in French as you can in Italian".
>> >
>> >
>> >> -I want D to have a library like delphi/.net has, full OO and
>> component
>> >> based (modern design of class libraries). For C++ you have
>> >> vcf.sourceforge.net
>> >
>> > Can you explain why OO is better?
>> >
>> > I'm not saying a free-functions approach is better, or a fully generic approach, or whatever. But you are clearly making the point that an OO
> is
>> > superior, and I'm still waiting for you to offer some proof
>> >
>> >> -In .NET you can have classes in dlls, D can have them too, no one is forcing you to use the dll format dictated by MS before .NET was arround.
>> >
>> > I don't understand the point you're making here.
>> >
>> >> -Becaues C\C++ have been arround for a lot of time, it doesn't mean
> that
>> >> it is the best thing and stuff should still be done like that (that
>> is
>> >> why
>> >> D has been invented).  Most people use Internet Explorer, is that the
>> >> best
>> >> browser? No.
>> >
>> > What has C/C++ got to do with anything? Are you saying that an OO
>> > approach
>> > cannot be supported by either of these languages, and/or that use of
>> > these
>> > languages forces one to adopt an entirely procedural approach? None of
>> > those
>> > are true. I have written object-oriented code in C, and modern C++ is
>> an
>> > even balance between OO (including ADTs and runtime-polymorphism) and generics, with just a dash of procedural thrown in for good measure
>> >
>> > <ASIDE>C++ remains the best language at the moment because it ably
>> > supports
>> > *all* current programming paradigms (apart from functional, I guess,
>> > although some of the more abstruse meta techniques are moving in that
>> > direction). No other widely-used language can claim this, and the
> watered
>> > down attempts for generics in C# and Java are not going to come
>> anywhere
>> > near allowing them to join the club. D aims to be the second one, and
>> > IMHO
>> > it stands a very good chance at doing so. If you would care to point
>> out
>> > where this statement is wrong, I'll fry up my undies with a little
>> extra
>> > virgin olive oil and eat them for dinner.</ASIDE>
>> >
>> >> - D isn't perfect, but it can be close to perfect if you people think
>> >> out
>> >> of the box for a minute.
>> >
>> > Again, you're being ridiculous, insulting and making fatuous blanket statements.
>> >
>> > At this point I've exhausted my reserve of interest. Apologies if you
>> > have
>> > some good points further down.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Matthew
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> - The delegate/event model of C# should be included in D because, it
>> >> makes
>> >> it very easy to work with event based programming.
>> >> - Methods/Properties should be PascalCase, it doesn't force you to
>> use
>> >> _var m_var and other types of decoration.
>> >> - Indexers are cool since they allow you to use a class/struct like
>> an
>> >> array:
>> >>
>> >> public class Building
>> >> {
>> >>      Story[] stories;
>> >>
>> >>      public  Story this[int index] //doesn't have to be int eg:
>> >> HashTable
>> >>      {
>> >>          get { return stories[index];
>> >>          set
>> >>          {
>> >>              if (value != null)
>> >>                  stories[index] = value;
>> >>          }
>> >>      }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> public class Test
>> >> {
>> >>      public static void Main()
>> >>      {
>> >>          Building myHouse = new Building();
>> >>          myHouse[10] = new Story("The last story");
>> >>      }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> - Operator overloading: It is easier to use the operators instead of
>> >> functions (eg: opAdd()) when overloding.
>> >>
>> >>   public static bool operator != (Bar x, Bar y) {
>> >> return x.value != y.value;
>> >>   }
>> >>
>> >> - Attributes: Attributes are super cool and developers should be able
> to
>> >> extend the language using attributes.
>> >>    Attributes in D should have a better syntax to show that those
> things
>> >> are different.  The reason why in C# they are [MyAttribute()] is
>> >> MyAttribute is a class and you can have [MyAttribute(argument1,
>> >> argument2,
>> >> argument3)]
>> >> class MyAttribute : FoobarAttribute
>> >> {
>> >>    // extend it
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> [MyAttribute()]
>> >>   expression
>> >>
>> >> - C# has nailed a lot of good stuff, they looked at many languages
>> when
>> >> they made it. So D should have them too.
>> >> - Namespaces and strong named assemblies (with metadata about the
> types)
>> >> in dll format.  It is very anoying that you have to use the file
> system.
>> >> - No header files (assemblies with meta data that support classes).
>> >> - No more dozens of lines of ugly code to include a dll dynamically,
>> >> take
>> >> a look at the examples  Assembly.Load("mydll.dll"), use the classes
>> in
>> >> it
>> >> with no problem.  A framework like that would be super cool in D.
>> >> - Take a look at this article
>> >> http://genamics.com/developer/csharp_comparative.htm and at the C#
>> >> Language Reference.  All that cool stuff should be included.  If
>> there
>> >> is
>> >> another cool thing that another language has that isn't in C#,
>> included
>> >> it
>> >> too. But C# is perfect in a lot of ways.  Right now D is doing it
>> the C
>> >> way.
>> >> - You can't build apps as fast in C++/C/D as you can do in .NET with
> any
>> >> language (not as fast in Managed C++ since it has a lot of quircks). - Learn from .NET, and make D development as easy as it is in .NET.
>> It
>> >> currently isn't. It is less complicated than C++ but with the library
>> >> thing, it is just as worse (eg hard to load dlls, no classes, still,
>> >> libs,
>> >> headerfiles. ).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I have attached those files that were posted, even though they look
> fine
>> >> in Opera 7.5.  How come you can't see the tabs?
>> >>
>> >> This is the earlier post:
>> >>
>> >> Dude, in .NET you can do all that. For example at compile time i can
>> >> have
>> >> a dll with objects in it.  For example DigitalPlay.dll.
>> >>
>> >> namespace Test
>> >> {
>> >> using DigitalPlay.FoobarClient;
>> >>
>> >> class Testing
>> >> {
>> >>      public static void Main() {
>> >>       DigitalPlay.FoobarClient.Client foo = new
>> >> DigitalPlay.FoobarClient.Client();
>> >>       // or shortcut it since i sayed using...
>> >>       Client foo = new Client();
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> csc.exe Test.cs /resources:DigitalPlay.dll
>> >>
>> >> The compiler looks for types in the resources provided and links
>> them,
>> >> No
>> >> *.lib, header files no nothing. For late binding, it is a little more
>> >> complicated:
>> >>
>> >> Interfaces.cs (dll)
>> >> PluginServices.cs (dll)
>> >> Plugin.cs (dll)
>> >> Main.cs (exe)
>> >> ***Attachment***
>> >>
>> >> Compilation
>> >> 1) Interfaces.dll
>> >> 2) PluginServices.dll (csc /target:library /resources:Interfaces.dll)
>> >> 4) Plugin.dll (csc.exe /target:library
>> >> /resources:Interface.dll;Pluginservices.dll)
>> >> 3) Main.exe (csc.exe Main.cs
>> >> /resources:Interfaces.dll;PluginServices.dll)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The code is self explanatory.
>> >>
>> >> I could have showed you this in a few lines, but insted I showed you
>> a
>> >> full plugin system.  This also shows you the power of .NET types and
> how
>> >> they describe themselves.  If you do this crap the same as it has
>> been
>> >> done before C-Like, that what is the point? Show some progress, damn
>> >> it. D
>> >> has potential, but you have to create a nice class library like .NET
> and
>> >> stop doing the C-way of doing things. D, a 21st century language with
>> >> the
>> >> mentality of 1970s.
>> >>
>> >> For a system api call i'd use
>> >> namespace Testing
>> >> {
>> >>    // using isn't import, it is a shortcut so you won't have to type
> the
>> >> whole thing
>> >>    using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
>> >>
>> >>    public class Tester
>> >>    {
>> >>      [DllImport("kernel32.dll")]
>> >>      private static extern bool FreeConsole();
>> >>      public static void Main()
>> >>      {
>> >>         FreeConsole();
>> >>      }
>> >>    }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> So yes, you can use CLASSES in DLLS and no shitty header files or lib files.
>> >>
>> >> - This is for now, I'll post anything else that I forgot some other
>> >> time.
>> >> - I don't evangalize C# as something that should be used over D, I
>> want
>> >> C#
>> >> features to be in D.
>> >> - There is one feature in D, that i'd like in C#, so i'll use for
>> >> instead:
>> >>    foreach (int i, char c; a)
>> >>    { ]
>> >>    In C# you don't have access to the index.
>> >>
>> >>    C#
>> >>    foreach (ElementType element in collection) { // statement}
>> >>
>> >>    translates into
>> >>
>> >>    IEnumerator enumerator =
>> >> ((System.IEnumerable)(collection)).GetEnumerator();
>> >>     try {
>> >>     while (enumerator.MoveNext()) {
>> >>        ElementType element = (ElementType)enumerator.Current;
>> >>        statement;
>> >>     }
>> >>    }
>> >> finally {
>> >>     IDisposable disposable = enumerator as System.IDisposable;
>> >>     if (disposable != null) disposable.Dispose();
>> >> }
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c1aipb$cd8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <c1a2ki$2gko$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >
> >It seemed odd to me also.
> >
> >"Phill" <phill@pacific.net.au> wrote in message news:c19pq6$22d5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> Is that someone trying to pass themselves off
> >> as "Ant" (antonio) ?
> >> I think he speaks(and spells) a lot better than that.
> >>
>
> I'm sorry to say that you are wrong ;(
> (This shows you how difficult is to communicate on
> my second language, as soon as I'm a bit tired...)

Its ok , I find it difficult to communicate in my first
language when im tired :o))

Your spelling doesnt bother me at all, it just
felt to me  that it was a different person, especially
when, in the "from" field it had "And" instead
of "Ant".

Phill.

SpookyET wrote:
> You don't understand me.  I don't evangelize .NET; I evangelize some
> features of C#/.NET that should be in D.
> -I want D to succeed, because I want a native C# (since I don't know
> what mono is going to be, and it always is 2 years behind Microsoft).
> -I want you people to think out of the box!  C# was done by people
> thinking out of the box.  D has functions, so for those that want to
> use functions, let them. -I like OO (used functions once), but found
> OO better. -I want D to have a library like delphi/.net has, full OO
> and component based (modern design of class libraries). For C++ you
> have vcf.sourceforge.net
> -In .NET you can have classes in dlls, D can have them too, no one is
> forcing you to use the dll format dictated by MS before .NET was
> arround. -Becaues C\C++ have been arround for a lot of time, it
> doesn't mean that it is the best thing and stuff should still be
> done like that (that is why D has been invented).  Most people use
> Internet Explorer, is that the best browser? No.
> - D isn't perfect, but it can be close to perfect if you people
> think out of the box for a minute.
> - The delegate/event model of C# should be included in D because, it
> makes it very easy to work with event based programming.
> - Methods/Properties should be PascalCase, it doesn't force you to
> use _var m_var and other types of decoration.
> - Indexers are cool since they allow you to use a class/struct like
> an array:
> ...

I got it, I got it! MS found about D and they sent SpookyET here to put C#
over!
jk, btw

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

SpookyET wrote:
> Dude, in .NET you can do all that. For example at compile time i can have a dll with objects in it.  For example DigitalPlay.dll.
>
> ... [code] ...
>
> The compiler looks for types in the resources provided and links them, No *.lib, header files no nothing. For late binding, it is a little more complicated:
>
> I could have showed you this in a few lines, but insted I showed you a full plugin system.  This also shows you the power of .NET types and how they describe themselves.  If you do this crap the same as it has been done before C-Like, that what is the point? Show some progress, damn it. D has potential, but you have to create a nice class library like .NET and stop doing the C-way of doing things. D, a 21st century language with the mentality of 1970s.
>
> ... [more code] ...
>

I will repeat what others have said: try to get those things done in D. You'll learn D and when they're done, you'll be able to use them just like you would in C#. Even better, by doing them, you'll discover that D has other ways to do the same, or similar but better, or ...


-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

Just some comments.

SpookyET wrote:
> -In .NET you can have classes in dlls, D can have them too, no one is forcing you to use the dll format dictated by MS before .NET was arround.

But many times you'll want to interact with other languages/tools, and if D starts to use a different dll format, it won't be able to "talk" with those other tools. Take a look at my Apollo library (cheap plug, btw) at http://earth.prohosting.com/carlos3/Apollo.htm: the actual code is in Delphi, compiled in a dll, but it's used in D. If there was no standard dll format, that'd be impossible. Now, if there was also a standard lib format, that'd be awesome because Apollo could be statically linked if desired.

> Take a look at this article http://genamics.com/developer/csharp_comparative.htm and at the C# Language Reference.  All that cool stuff should be included.  If there is another cool thing that another language has that isn't in C#, included it too. But C# is perfect in a lot of ways.  Right now D is doing it the C way.

Sorry, there's nothing perfect in this universe.

> - You can't build apps as fast in C++/C/D as you can do in .NET with any language (not as fast in Managed C++ since it has a lot of quircks). - Learn from .NET, and make D development as easy as it is in .NET.  It currently isn't. It is less complicated than C++ but with the library thing, it is just as worse (eg hard to load dlls, no classes, still, libs, headerfiles. ).


Write some tool that helps D development faster.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

> I got it, I got it! MS found about D and they sent SpookyET here to put C# over!

I thought it smelled like sabotage\conspiracy ;)


On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:56:50 -0500, Carlos Santander B. <carlos8294@msn.com> wrote:

> SpookyET wrote:
>> You don't understand me.  I don't evangelize .NET; I evangelize some
>> features of C#/.NET that should be in D.
>> -I want D to succeed, because I want a native C# (since I don't know
>> what mono is going to be, and it always is 2 years behind Microsoft).
>> -I want you people to think out of the box!  C# was done by people
>> thinking out of the box.  D has functions, so for those that want to
>> use functions, let them. -I like OO (used functions once), but found
>> OO better. -I want D to have a library like delphi/.net has, full OO
>> and component based (modern design of class libraries). For C++ you
>> have vcf.sourceforge.net
>> -In .NET you can have classes in dlls, D can have them too, no one is
>> forcing you to use the dll format dictated by MS before .NET was
>> arround. -Becaues C\C++ have been arround for a lot of time, it
>> doesn't mean that it is the best thing and stuff should still be
>> done like that (that is why D has been invented).  Most people use
>> Internet Explorer, is that the best browser? No.
>> - D isn't perfect, but it can be close to perfect if you people
>> think out of the box for a minute.
>> - The delegate/event model of C# should be included in D because, it
>> makes it very easy to work with event based programming.
>> - Methods/Properties should be PascalCase, it doesn't force you to
>> use _var m_var and other types of decoration.
>> - Indexers are cool since they allow you to use a class/struct like
>> an array:
>> ...
>
> I got it, I got it! MS found about D and they sent SpookyET here to put C#
> over!
> jk, btw
>
> -----------------------
> Carlos Santander Bernal
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Ant wrote:
> In article <c19isc$1kqp$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> 
>>*You* state that D should go all OO, and yet *you* can offer no evidence to
>>back up your assertion.
> 
> 
> of course we all know that D already went OO.
> There is no need to go anywhere. it's already there.
> (D also supports procedural BTW)
> 
> What's missing is a OO lib.
> 
> ..
> Ant

No, no!
What's missing are functional (partially present) and dataflow.
OTOH, successful dataflow implementations are quite rare.  Perhaps Prograf is the most notable one, and I believe that it's defunct. There doesn't seem to be an easy way to linearize the code.  (I.e., to make the code printable.)  All the implementations seem to need graphic front-ends, which not only makes the development heavy, but also makes listings huge, and prevents one from seeing much code at once.

Perhaps it's a mistake to try to make a language which is all things to all people.  D may be near the optimum point for the current technology.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:53:51 -0800, Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:

> OTOH, successful dataflow implementations are quite rare.  Perhaps Prograf is the most notable one, and I believe that it's defunct.

What's this Prograf about? Do you have a link? I tried googling but no success...

-- 
Robert M. Münch
Management & IT Freelancer
http://www.robertmuench.de

Robert M. Münch wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:53:51 -0800, Charles Hixson  <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> OTOH, successful dataflow implementations are quite rare.  Perhaps  Prograf is the most notable one, and I believe that it's defunct.
> 
> 
> What's this Prograf about? Do you have a link? I tried googling but no  success...
> 
I think that they've gone out of business while attempting to transition from the Mac to MSWind.  (I.e., years ago, possibly decades.)
Dataflow seems to be something that it's quite difficult to make work properly, though when it does work it gives you an automatic parallelism that no other technique matches.  It's as if, e.g., a for loop had no implicit order of operations, so separate iterations could be swapped out to every available processor.  (Well, it only ran on a single processor system, so who knows how that would have worked out really, but it was quite impressive...but the [user] code was so bulky that it was quite difficult to use.)

Sorry.  No links.  I may have an old set of Mac floppies for system 7.5 though...somewhere...and they might still be readable.