http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1773.html#comparison-of-contract-programming-in-d-eiffel-and-c

I randomly happened upon the link above while looking for information on contract programming.  This was back in March 2005; it's nice to see D show up in something like this.

Anyways, I just though some people might enjoy.

-Kramer

"Kramer" <Kramer_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dk8f6e$ncv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1773.html#comparison-of-contract-programming-in-d-eiffel-and-c
>
> I randomly happened upon the link above while looking for information on contract programming.  This was back in March 2005; it's nice to see D
show up
> in something like this.

D was the motivating force behind that proposal, I expect we'll see more of D showing up in C++.

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Kramer" <Kramer_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:dk8f6e$ncv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1773.html#comparison-of-contract-programming-in-d-eiffel-and-c
> 
>>I randomly happened upon the link above while looking for information on
>>contract programming.  This was back in March 2005; it's nice to see D
> 
> show up
> 
>>in something like this.
> 
> 
> D was the motivating force behind that proposal, I expect we'll see more of
> D showing up in C++.
> 
> 

Does this remind anyone of the politics in the US? Some third party comes up with a great idea, and one or both of the main parties absorbs it?

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Kramer" <Kramer_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
> news:dk8f6e$ncv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1773.html#comparison-of-contract-programming-in-d-eiffel-and-c
> 
>> I randomly happened upon the link above while looking for information on
>> contract programming.  This was back in March 2005; it's nice to see D
>> show up in something like this.

Makes me so proud!  (As in my Dad is stronger than your dad.)

> D was the motivating force behind that proposal, I expect we'll see more of
> D showing up in C++.

Killer!

So D is making inroads to the academically minded! A new, implicit campaign for D in CS!


What caught my eye was the __old stuff. Seemed practical.

"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dk9tjl$26ar$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
> > "Kramer" <Kramer_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dk8f6e$ncv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> >
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1773.html#comparison-of-contract-programming-in-d-eiffel-and-c
> >
> >>I randomly happened upon the link above while looking for information on contract programming.  This was back in March 2005; it's nice to see D
> > show up
> >>in something like this.
> >
> > D was the motivating force behind that proposal, I expect we'll see more
of
> > D showing up in C++.
>
> Does this remind anyone of the politics in the US? Some third party comes up with a great idea, and one or both of the main parties absorbs
it?

C++ can absorb all it wants, but it'll never be D, because C++ has too many backwards compatibility issues throwing a wrench into what's really needed to fix it.

Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> C++ can absorb all it wants, but it'll never be D, because C++ has too many
> backwards compatibility issues throwing a wrench into what's really needed
> to fix it.

Definately.  I think it's great that C++ is incorporating features that I like because it will make my life easier, but the language isn't nearly as elegant as D.  And in some respects I am concerned that the next iteration of C++ will include so much stuff that the learning curve will be enormous.  Interestingly, it wasn't until I started playing with the DMD front-end code that I began to understand and appreciate the finer points of the D design (since the DMD front-end is basically written in a C++ approximation of its D equivalent).  As a result, I'm gaining a growing distaste for all the constructs C++ provides to handle simple things like memory management and object ownership--they clutter the code tremendously and never feel particularly natural to use.  If complex library code is necessary to facilitate such routine tasks, part of me is left wondering if it isn't a fault of the language design.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>>
>> C++ can absorb all it wants, but it'll never be D, because C++ has too many
>> backwards compatibility issues throwing a wrench into what's really needed
>> to fix it.
> 
> 
> Definately.  I think it's great that C++ is incorporating features that I like because it will make my life easier, but the language isn't nearly as elegant as D.  And in some respects I am concerned that the next iteration of C++ will include so much stuff that the learning curve will be enormous.  Interestingly, it wasn't until I started playing with the DMD front-end code that I began to understand and appreciate the finer points of the D design (since the DMD front-end is basically written in a C++ approximation of its D equivalent).  As a result, I'm gaining a growing distaste for all the constructs C++ provides to handle simple things like memory management and object ownership--they clutter the code tremendously and never feel particularly natural to use.  If complex library code is necessary to facilitate such routine tasks, part of me is left wondering if it isn't a fault of the language design.
> 

Makes you wonder how great it would be if DMD fron-end was written in D.
It would be many times easier to understand, maintain, change, debug...

> 
> Sean

Ivan Senji wrote:
> 
> Makes you wonder how great it would be if DMD fron-end was written in D.
> It would be many times easier to understand, maintain, change, debug...

It probably wouldn't be too hard to port, given the design.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Ivan Senji wrote:
> 
>>
>> Makes you wonder how great it would be if DMD fron-end was written in D.
>> It would be many times easier to understand, maintain, change, debug...
> 
> 
> It probably wouldn't be too hard to port, given the design.
> 

I thought that the problem with porting would be interfacing to back-end wich is C++.

> 
> Sean

Ivan Senji wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> 
>> Ivan Senji wrote:
>>>
>>> Makes you wonder how great it would be if DMD fron-end was written in D.
>>> It would be many times easier to understand, maintain, change, debug...
>>
>> It probably wouldn't be too hard to port, given the design.
>>
> I thought that the problem with porting would be interfacing to back-end wich is C++.

That doesn't affect how hard the code would be to port, only its usefulness for integration with a C++ back-end.  I suspect that a D version of the front-end still might be useful for anyone hoping to write an IDE for D in D, etc.  Beyond that... perhaps someone feel like writing an intermediate code generator in D? ;-)


Sean