Thread overview | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
August 20, 2015 Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
https://twitter.com/yukihiro_matz/status/634386185507311616 Yet another choice D got right "out of the box" :-) Even Bjarne is coming around to the "Generic all the time" view... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcpSLRpOMJM Pity that concepts looks to be a very painful syntax for expressing what D does so clearly. Hurry up Walter, the rest of the world is catching up to you! :-D (Just joking... things like this clearly show you're leading, and leading in the right direction!) |
August 20, 2015 Re: Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to John Carter | On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 22:07:10 UTC, John Carter wrote:
> Pity that concepts looks to be a very painful syntax for expressing what D does so clearly.
I believe this is the main reason people use D.
|
August 20, 2015 Re: Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to John Carter | On 8/20/2015 3:07 PM, John Carter wrote:
> https://twitter.com/yukihiro_matz/status/634386185507311616
>
> Yet another choice D got right "out of the box" :-)
>
> Even Bjarne is coming around to the "Generic all the time" view...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcpSLRpOMJM
>
> Pity that concepts looks to be a very painful syntax for expressing what D does
> so clearly.
>
> Hurry up Walter, the rest of the world is catching up to you! :-D
>
> (Just joking... things like this clearly show you're leading, and leading in the
> right direction!)
>
I posted in another thread a while back a list of D features that C++ is rushing to incorporate.
|
August 20, 2015 Re: Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 22:22:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 3:07 PM, John Carter wrote:
>> https://twitter.com/yukihiro_matz/status/634386185507311616
>>
>> Yet another choice D got right "out of the box" :-)
>>
>> Even Bjarne is coming around to the "Generic all the time" view...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcpSLRpOMJM
>>
>> Pity that concepts looks to be a very painful syntax for expressing what D does
>> so clearly.
>>
>> Hurry up Walter, the rest of the world is catching up to you! :-D
>>
>> (Just joking... things like this clearly show you're leading, and leading in the
>> right direction!)
>>
>
> I posted in another thread a while back a list of D features that C++ is rushing to incorporate.
The problem is that they're incorporating them poorly and ugly. I was watching the video with Bjarne and he brought up the point of how much compiler time is increased by these features. It's something I take for granted in D, I suppose.
|
August 20, 2015 Re: Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to rsw0x | On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:34:08PM +0000, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 22:22:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > >On 8/20/2015 3:07 PM, John Carter wrote: > >>https://twitter.com/yukihiro_matz/status/634386185507311616 > >> > >>Yet another choice D got right "out of the box" :-) > >> > >>Even Bjarne is coming around to the "Generic all the time" view... > >> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcpSLRpOMJM > >> > >>Pity that concepts looks to be a very painful syntax for expressing what D does so clearly. > >> > >>Hurry up Walter, the rest of the world is catching up to you! :-D > >> > >>(Just joking... things like this clearly show you're leading, and > >>leading in the right direction!) > >> > > > >I posted in another thread a while back a list of D features that C++ is rushing to incorporate. > > The problem is that they're incorporating them poorly and ugly. [...] Is it really a *problem*, though? ;-) Having C++ play catchup with D, poorly, is good motivation for people to finally give up C++ and adopt D. T -- Ruby is essentially Perl minus Wall. |
August 20, 2015 Re: Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh | On 8/20/2015 3:35 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> I posted in another thread a while back a list of D features that C++
>>> is rushing to incorporate.
>>
>> The problem is that they're incorporating them poorly and ugly.
> [...]
>
> Is it really a *problem*, though? ;-) Having C++ play catchup with D,
> poorly, is good motivation for people to finally give up C++ and adopt
> D.
It's a nice validation of the great work we're doing with D.
|
August 21, 2015 Re: Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On 8/21/2015 11:58 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 3:35 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>> I posted in another thread a while back a list of D features that C++
>>>> is rushing to incorporate.
>>>
>>> The problem is that they're incorporating them poorly and ugly.
>> [...]
>>
>> Is it really a *problem*, though? ;-) Having C++ play catchup with D,
>> poorly, is good motivation for people to finally give up C++ and adopt
>> D.
>
> It's a nice validation of the great work we're doing with D.
And that we are doing it properly, first time. Props to you Walter for being the no-man!
|
August 21, 2015 Re: Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Rikki Cattermole | On 8/20/2015 7:50 PM, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> And that we are doing it properly, first time. Props to you Walter for being the
> no-man!
We've still made many mistakes. But C++ is a lot more trapped by the past than D is - such as the random size of 'int', the macro preprocessor, syntax, useless const, non-Unicode character sets, declaration ordering, friend declarations, Koenig lookup, etc. At least C++ finally let go of trigraphs, ugh.
I'm still amazed by how even modern C++ code bases embed the trickiest, most bizarre uses of the preprocessor and then build their entire code structure around it.
|
August 21, 2015 Re: Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On 8/21/2015 5:43 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 7:50 PM, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>> And that we are doing it properly, first time. Props to you Walter for
>> being the
>> no-man!
>
>
> We've still made many mistakes. But C++ is a lot more trapped by the
> past than D is - such as the random size of 'int', the macro
> preprocessor, syntax, useless const, non-Unicode character sets,
> declaration ordering, friend declarations, Koenig lookup, etc. At least
> C++ finally let go of trigraphs, ugh.
>
> I'm still amazed by how even modern C++ code bases embed the trickiest,
> most bizarre uses of the preprocessor and then build their entire code
> structure around it.
Yeah I know we have. But unlike C++ with D2 we kinda solidified the idea of serious breaking changes every 5-10 years. Which is kinda important.
They don't do this.
|
August 21, 2015 Re: Ruby 3.0 to have immutable strings by default / C++ heading towards "generic all the time". | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | On Thursday, 20 August 2015 at 22:22:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > I posted in another thread a while back a list of D features that C++ is rushing to incorporate. Just found the proposal for transitive const: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4388.html |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation