I have to apologize. I never tought that my simple message will make so big storm.

I only wanted to know what an example does.
I (hope I) am experienced C++ programmer as you all.
I like D since it's syntax is clear and the compiler is powerful.

I read most of the posts, thank you all for the very detailed explanations, pros&cons. I've learned a lot.

BUT:
Mango is a great trial, but it lacks documentation and contains a lot of
_whishpered_ notations, techniques.
I do not believe that serious programmers will soon use it.
I trust only MY codes OR codes what I easily understand.
Such small syntax sugars could stop understanding for hours.
Programmers does not have hours to understand things.

Keep the syntax unambigous and easy to understand.
Walter does a very good job in it.

It is only _my_ opinion.
Blame me if you think ;-)

Tamás Nagy

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:42:40 +0000 (UTC), MicroWizard wrote:

> I have to apologize. I never tought that my simple message will make so big storm.
> 
> I only wanted to know what an example does.
> I (hope I) am experienced C++ programmer as you all.

I am not a C++ programmer (and proud of it).

> I like D since it's syntax is clear and the compiler is powerful.

Me too.

> I read most of the posts, thank you all for the very detailed explanations, pros&cons. I've learned a lot.
> 
> BUT:
> Mango is a great trial, but it lacks documentation and contains a lot of
> _whishpered_ notations, techniques.
> I do not believe that serious programmers will soon use it.
> I trust only MY codes OR codes what I easily understand.
> Such small syntax sugars could stop understanding for hours.

Why? All one has to learn is that the syntax form

   object(A)(B)(C)...(Z);

is equivalent to

   object.opCall(A);
   object.opCall(B);
   object.opCall(C);
   . . .
   object.opCall(Z);

It doesn't take all that long to learn a new thing in a new programming language.

> Programmers does not have hours to understand things.

Minutes really. It isn't that hard to grasp.

> Keep the syntax unambigous and easy to understand.

Let's all go back to COBOL then.

> Walter does a very good job in it.

Mostly.

> It is only _my_ opinion.
> Blame me if you think ;-)

Same here ;-)


-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
12/12/2005 11:04:56 PM

>I am not a C++ programmer (and proud of it).
Lucky man ;-)

>> BUT:
>> Mango is a great trial, but it lacks documentation and contains a lot of
>> _whishpered_ notations, techniques.
>> I do not believe that serious programmers will soon use it.
>> I trust only MY codes OR codes what I easily understand.
>> Such small syntax sugars could stop understanding for hours.
>
>Why? All one has to learn is that the syntax form ...
>
>It doesn't take all that long to learn a new thing in a new programming language.
>
>> Programmers does not have hours to understand things.
>
>Minutes really. It isn't that hard to grasp.
Ok. Stop for a moment. Please do not be anrgy.
Here at my actual workplace we are full of "smarties"
(I do not know the correct english word, we use "okos tojás" in Hungary
which can be translated to "smart egg")
who are always ready to tell what to
change/optimize/refactor/reinvent/reimplement instead of clarify and finish
things. Now we are at the 60% of time but 10% of functionality, and the plans
are still floating.
This is not the way of producing good product in a reasonable time.
I did good products, I managed good teams, where the guys used C++ (knowing it's
problems) effectively. We used coding standards and it worked.

So I feel theoretically you are right, but practically I am not a computer (as most of us), I am not able to really use (adapt) things so fast.

I am effective in techniques only, which I understand fully with their implications too.

>> Keep the syntax unambigous and easy to understand.
>
>Let's all go back to COBOL then.
You are joking, I am serious ;-)

>> Walter does a very good job in it.
>Mostly.
Of course, mostly. But think! The word "best" is always subjective. Efficent, optimized, fast ... there must be balance.

>> It is only _my_ opinion.
>> Blame me if you think ;-)
>Same here ;-)

Fundamentally we agree :-)

Tamás Nagy

In article <dnjrp8$1bfe$1@digitaldaemon.com>, MicroWizard says...
>
>Here at my actual workplace we are full of "smarties"
>(I do not know the correct english word, we use "okos tojás" in Hungary
>which can be translated to "smart egg")

If it helps, Tamás, I think the closest expression in English would be "egghead", which can mean "smart guy" but usually only if you're talking about yourself. See below:

Princeton wordnet:
Egghead - an intellectual; a very studious and academic person

Wikipedia:
Egghead - In the slang of the United States, egghead was an anti-intellectual
epithet, directed at people considered too out-of-touch with ordinary people and
too lacking in realism, common sense, virility, etc. on account of their
intellectual interests.

As it has a double-meaning, I guess you could think of it as being in the same category as "nerd", "geek", "hacker" or "otaku" -- some of which are probably just as good as "egghead", depending on who you're talking about. :)

- EricAnderton at yahoo

pragma wrote:
> In article <dnjrp8$1bfe$1@digitaldaemon.com>, MicroWizard says...
> 
>>Here at my actual workplace we are full of "smarties"
>>(I do not know the correct english word, we use "okos tojás" in Hungary
>>which can be translated to "smart egg")
> 
> 
> If it helps, Tamás, I think the closest expression in English would be "egghead", which can mean "smart guy" but usually only if you're talking about yourself. See below:
> 
> Princeton wordnet:
> Egghead - an intellectual; a very studious and academic person
> 
> Wikipedia:
> Egghead - In the slang of the United States, egghead was an anti-intellectual
> epithet, directed at people considered too out-of-touch with ordinary people and
> too lacking in realism, common sense, virility, etc. on account of their
> intellectual interests.
> 
> As it has a double-meaning, I guess you could think of it as being in the same category as "nerd", "geek", "hacker" or "otaku" -- some of which are probably just as good as "egghead", depending on who you're talking about. :)
> 
> - EricAnderton at yahoo

I got the impression of something more along the lines of "wise guy", "smart aleck", or "smarty-pants".

"Egghead" refers to actually smart people - geeks, essentially, as you said - whereas what MicroWizard said was that the people in question "are always ready to tell what to change/optimize/refactor/reinvent/reimplement instead of clarify and finish things". That is, people who, instead of doing work, claim to be completely capable of doing the work better than anybody who's currently doing it. Why they're not doing it can sometimes be attributed to laziness, but more often to incompetence - they're actually just boasting, they can't actually do what they claim.

Deewiant wrote:

> I got the impression of something more along the lines of "wise guy", "smart
> aleck", or "smarty-pants".
> 
> "Egghead" refers to actually smart people - geeks, essentially, as you said -
> whereas what MicroWizard said was that the people in question "are always ready
> to tell what to change/optimize/refactor/reinvent/reimplement instead of clarify
> and finish things". That is, people who, instead of doing work, claim to be
> completely capable of doing the work better than anybody who's currently doing
> it. Why they're not doing it can sometimes be attributed to laziness, but more
> often to incompetence - they're actually just boasting, they can't actually do
> what they claim.

Yeah... that sounds more like what he was talking about.  "Smart aleck" hit me when I was reading his post.

-JJR

In article <dnkh4s$2760$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>
>Deewiant wrote:
>
>> I got the impression of something more along the lines of "wise guy", "smart aleck", or "smarty-pants".
>> 
>> "Egghead" refers to actually smart people - geeks, essentially, as you said - whereas what MicroWizard said was that the people in question "are always ready to tell what to change/optimize/refactor/reinvent/reimplement instead of clarify and finish things". That is, people who, instead of doing work, claim to be completely capable of doing the work better than anybody who's currently doing it. Why they're not doing it can sometimes be attributed to laziness, but more often to incompetence - they're actually just boasting, they can't actually do what they claim.
>
>Yeah... that sounds more like what he was talking about.  "Smart aleck" hit me when I was reading his post.
>

Gotcha, that one got by me... thanks guys for clearing things up. :)

- EricAnderton at yahoo

Thank you all, you got it.

Nice day!
I've learned new D syntax sugar and perfect/practical english phrases too ;-))

Nagy Tamás

P.S: If you have develop in M$dotnet ... ESCAPE!

>>Yeah... that sounds more like what he was talking about.  "Smart aleck" hit me when I was reading his post.
>>
>
>Gotcha, that one got by me... thanks guys for clearing things up. :)
>
>- EricAnderton at yahoo

MicroWizard wrote:
> 
> So I feel theoretically you are right, but practically I am not a computer (as most of us), I am not able to really use (adapt) things so fast.
>
"As most of us"? You mean some of us are computers? Whoa ... :D



-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> MicroWizard wrote:
> 
>>
>> So I feel theoretically you are right, but practically I am not a computer (as most of us), I am not able to really use (adapt) things so fast.
>>
> "As most of us"? You mean some of us are computers? Whoa ... :D

I once thought I were a computer... I was studying some Assembly programming and thinking a lot about it. I remember one evening when I was falling asleep, I seriously wondered which interrupts I was calling to make me sleep :P



-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d-pu s+: a-->----- C+++$>++++ UL P+ L+ E--- W++ N++ o? K? w++ !O !M V? PS- PE- Y PGP t 5 X? R tv-- b DI- D+ G e>+++ h>++ !r !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/