On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 06:31:44 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> I guess C and C++ aren't even considered languages anymore.

?

main.c:13:10: error: invalid operands to binary == (have ‘struct S’ and ‘struct S’)
     if(a == b)

You can't use == in C on structs ... ?

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 06:50:08 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 06:31:44 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> I guess C and C++ aren't even considered languages anymore.
>
> ?
>
> main.c:13:10: error: invalid operands to binary == (have ‘struct S’ and ‘struct S’)
>      if(a == b)
>
> You can't use == in C on structs ... ?

Exactly -- when there is no correct behavior, they didn't try implementing one.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 06:46:49 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> I could tell you the same thing, but it wouldn't get me anywhere.

Alrighty, that's my sign to leave. Good luck Mehrdad.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 06:52:03 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 06:46:49 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> I could tell you the same thing, but it wouldn't get me anywhere.
>
> Good luck Mehrdad.

Same to you.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 06:54:07 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> Same to you.

I'm going to just be a little frank with you here.

I've _never_ had even a slightly productive conversation with you. You're hostile to work with. I know you have some valuable things to say and contribute to the community, but its just too difficult to work with you.

If you'd make some effort at being less antagonistic, you'd find you'd get much further. Like I said in my previous large post, there are solutions out there we could talk about, but you won't hear it. Heck, you essentially didn't even acknowledge the vast majority of what I had to say in my last large post. I had plenty of neat potential solutions, but they don't even get a slight consideration on your part. What a waste of time.

I half-way expect a quick backhanded reply in less than 30 seconds yet again, but I hope you consider thinking about it over night.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 07:09:41 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 06:54:07 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> Same to you.
>
> I'm going to just be a little frank with you here.
>
> I've _never_ had even a slightly productive conversation with you. You're hostile to work with. I know you have some valuable things to say and contribute to the community, but its just too difficult to work with you.


Sorry, most of my responses are really short because I'm working on other things at the moment.

I'm just trying to say a few sentences to make a point and go back to what I'm doing, but it's not going as well as I would have hoped.


> If you'd make some effort at being less antagonistic, you'd find you'd get much further.


> Like I said in my previous large post, there are solutions out there we could talk about, but you won't hear it.


It's because you're solving a different problem than the one I'm mentioning.
I'm telling you the problem (struct == behavior is wrong), you're telling me there is a workaround (tuples).


I'm not looking for a workaround, I already know enough workarounds for it.

I'm just trying to tell you it's a _workaround_ to a _problem_.
The fact that it exists doesn't make the problem go away.


> Heck, you essentially didn't even acknowledge the vast majority of what I had to say in my last large post.


Honestly, out of all the things I said, you also picked and chose single one to give nonsensical replies to.

I said C and C++ and VB.NET and Matlab etc., and you just replied with "C struct doesn't even have ==".

Not only did you completely miss my first point there (why aren't other languages doing the same thing?), you also missed my second point:
If == doesn't make sense, it shouldn't be defined at all.


> I had plenty of neat potential solutions, but they don't even get a slight consideration on your part. What a waste of time.

Again, my purpose in mentioning this wasn't to look for a workaround, but to point out the problem itself, see above.


I'm not having trouble finding workarounds, I'm just pointing out examples of why people aren't finding D usable (or why they consider it broken).

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 07:19:47 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> I'm not having trouble finding workarounds, I'm just pointing out examples of why people aren't finding D usable (or why they consider it broken).

And I know no one likes to hear something is broken.
I'm not doing that to be mean or something like that, I'm doing it because when I see people forget there are usability issues in D, I think it's beneficial for me to point out [you can correct me if I'm wrong] the flaws, rather than pretend that the language is very usable and people are just too slow in adopting it.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 07:19:47 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> Sorry, most of my responses are really short because I'm working on other things at the moment.
>
> I'm just trying to say a few sentences to make a point and go back to what I'm doing, but it's not going as well as I would have hoped.

OK.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 07:19:47 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> Honestly, out of all the things I said, you also picked and chose single one to give nonsensical replies to.
>
> I said C and C++ and VB.NET and Matlab etc., and you just replied with "C struct doesn't even have ==".

I'm just replying to this because I wanted to make it clear what I did:

I booted up a Linux VM and wrote a quick program to try to understand where you were coming from, taking a painstaking effort to try to understand you and the context of what you're trying to say. I didn't respond to all of the other languages because I was immediately confused by the result of the first and, additionally, trying all of the above languages would be fairly time consuming. My apologies for not trying all of them.

My intention was for good when I did it, so I hope that's enough to earn forgiveness for "picking and choosing a single one to give nonsensical replies to". :-\

>
> Not only did you completely miss my first point there (why aren't other languages doing the same thing?), you also missed my second point:
> If == doesn't make sense, it shouldn't be defined at all.

Also, your second point wasn't missed. It simply didn't exist before I had started trying the C code.

TBH, I think this would be a better solution. But I'd bet it'd break way too much code now.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 07:37:29 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 07:19:47 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> Sorry, most of my responses are really short because I'm working on other things at the moment.
>>
>> I'm just trying to say a few sentences to make a point and go back to what I'm doing, but it's not going as well as I would have hoped.
>
> OK.
>
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 07:19:47 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> Honestly, out of all the things I said, you also picked and chose single one to give nonsensical replies to.
>>
>> I said C and C++ and VB.NET and Matlab etc., and you just replied with "C struct doesn't even have ==".
>
> I'm just replying to this because I wanted to make it clear what I did:
>
> I booted up a Linux VM and wrote a quick program to try to understand where you were coming from, taking a painstaking effort to try to understand you and the context of what you're trying to say. I didn't respond to all of the other languages because I was immediately confused by the result of the first and, additionally, trying all of the above languages would be fairly time consuming. My apologies for not trying all of them.
>
> My intention was for good when I did it, so I hope that's enough to earn forgiveness for "picking and choosing a single one to give nonsensical replies to". :-\


Haha okay no worries, sorry my replies weren't terribly friendly.
Btw there's www.ideone.com, you can also try some things there.

>
>>
>> Not only did you completely miss my first point there (why aren't other languages doing the same thing?), you also missed my second point:
>> If == doesn't make sense, it shouldn't be defined at all.
>
> Also, your second point wasn't missed. It simply didn't exist before I had started trying the C code.


Sorry I didn't realize that. :( Hope it makes sense now.

> TBH, I think this would be a better solution. But I'd bet it'd break way too much code now.


I think if D wants to go anywhere, code will have to be broken, lots of it.

No one's going to like it, but when it has broken features to begin with then it's not going to go very far in terms of usability.

On Monday, 22 April 2013 at 22:17:33 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Monday, 22 April 2013 at 14:25:21 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On Sunday, 21 April 2013 at 19:58:14 UTC, Tourist wrote:
>>> What's holding you from releasing a version now and declaring it stable for e.g. a year?
>>
>> What would be the benefit of just declaring one release stable?
>>
>> This is not a trick question.
>
> That would not be a benefit, maybe. But, however, an answer to the question: "will EVER D be finished?" would be more than wonderful.
>
> Clean up the doubtful or wrong features and let it as it is. Further language improvements should be made after several years of use. Much like C++ is evolving with its standards, also C (C89, C99 etc.)
>
> Seriously, now, D is in the making for a decade and more. And, until it gets stable and Walter STOPS working on D (language) and, instead, only works on the COMPILER, things are not done.
>
> D starts looking like the D in _D_uke Nukem Forever (and forever it will take...).
>
> I got old looking at D and hoping that it will ever get released.
>
> Imagine that Bjarne Stroustrup would proceed today with changing C++ at the same pace as D is. C++ still evolves, albeit less fast than D, but also with much more scrutinity and, let's say, conservatorism. Which, after a while, it is good.
>
> Will D remain the forever unborn child of the programming languages?
>
> Born it. Let it become what is intended to be: a MATURE language. Yes, it might not grow perfect, but it will grow. It needs to get into childhood, enough with the (pro-)creation.
>
> At my job I went back to C++. With a language contunously in the making, the tools will never mature enough, never will get Eclipse plugins as good as CDT, never etc.
>
> I have that feeling (correct me if I am wrong) that C++ will catch up with D in several years. Look at C++11, it is a nice improvement. C++14 will be (hopefully) even better. And, then?...
>
> Radons&Minayev made a good decision to quit D back then and never look behind. A toy it was, a toy remained.

I don't think my boss I have to know if D is finished to let us
adopt it for future products, he only want to know we'll able to
create our next product with D with the same requirement and if
the delay will be the same or better.

For the moment due to our target platform the response is no. But
if we target only Desktops the answer seems to be really close to
a yes. Some libraries are missing, but there is nothing we aren't
capable to write. The major issue for a boss is to accept to move
"old" c++ code to trash, that was his investment, actually
because there is no D developers on job market, D code isn't
valuable for him.

To break the vicious circle some companies have to take the risk
to migrate to D and let the world know it.

The easier way for a language to be inserted in companies is
certainly as scripting language, just like python. Because
companies doesn't consider script as really pieces of software
and let developers send it to trash. It's a mistake to not
considering scripts as valuable just because they are not sell.