http://www.digg.com/programming/Ruby_Python_C_Java_Side_By_Side_Code_Comparison

Then there is D which combines strengths of C++ and Java, who wants to send him an email? :-P

I made a little comment @ digg too.

~ Clay

Walter Bright wrote:
> http://www.digg.com/programming/Ruby_Python_C_Java_Side_By_Side_Code_Comparison 
> 

clayasaurus wrote:

> Then there is D which combines strengths of C++ and Java,

I thought that D combined the strengths of *C* and Java,
while providing a simpler alternative to big brother C++ ?

Or maybe that is just me not knowing enough about C++, and
waiting for GDC to support all fancy D templates and so on.

--anders

My 2 cents:

    If D can get rid of all the embarassing easily-criticisable warts, &&
        D can be proven to support template programming in the large (and in
the real), which may or may not require implicit function template
instantiation, &&
        D can get a good standard library, &&
        D can get a debugger, IDE, and all the other productivity tools, &&
        D has built-in reg-exp, a la Ruby, &&
        D has a number of convincing show-me projects, &&
        D can be administered by person(s) who've enough time to dedicate to
each of language+compiler+std-library+application-programmers in equal
measure,
    Then D wins


"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:dre4ac$2p6i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> http://www.digg.com/programming/Ruby_Python_C_Java_Side_By_Side_Code_Comparison

>         D has built-in reg-exp, a la Ruby, &&

Is this really practical in a compiled language ?  Does the D community have a desperate need for built-in regexes ?

Can you give me an example why built-in would win over a regex library ?
( genuinely curious ).

Charlie

"Matthew" <matthew@stlsoft.com> wrote in message news:drfjgc$128o$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> My 2 cents:
>
>     If D can get rid of all the embarassing easily-criticisable warts, &&
>         D can be proven to support template programming in the large (and
in
> the real), which may or may not require implicit function template
> instantiation, &&
>         D can get a good standard library, &&
>         D can get a debugger, IDE, and all the other productivity tools,
&&
>         D has built-in reg-exp, a la Ruby, &&
>         D has a number of convincing show-me projects, &&
>         D can be administered by person(s) who've enough time to dedicate
to
> each of language+compiler+std-library+application-programmers in equal
> measure,
>     Then D wins
>
>
> "Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:dre4ac$2p6i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
http://www.digg.com/programming/Ruby_Python_C_Java_Side_By_Side_Code_Compari son
>
>

Should soft-boiled eggs be opened on the big or little side? :-P

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> clayasaurus wrote:
> 
>> Then there is D which combines strengths of C++ and Java,
> 
> I thought that D combined the strengths of *C* and Java,
> while providing a simpler alternative to big brother C++ ?
> 
> Or maybe that is just me not knowing enough about C++, and
> waiting for GDC to support all fancy D templates and so on.
> 
> --anders

"Charles" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:drg2mr$1hrg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>         D has built-in reg-exp, a la Ruby, &&
>
> Is this really practical in a compiled language ?  Does the D community
> have
> a desperate need for built-in regexes ?
>
> Can you give me an example why built-in would win over a regex library ?
> ( genuinely curious ).

Not only that, but D's support for regex's is far superior to C++'s (see Eric Anderton's regex template library). I don't see that Ruby has more than a trivial advantage here, if that.

clayasaurus wrote:

>>> Then there is D which combines strengths of C++ and Java,
>> 
>> I thought that D combined the strengths of *C* and Java,
>> while providing a simpler alternative to big brother C++ ? 
>
> Should soft-boiled eggs be opened on the big or little side? :-P

That depends on if they were laid by an african or european swallow?

:-)

Mixed metaphors aside, I didn't see D *replacing* C++ any time soon...

On the other hand, it (D) is working great for converting some simple
C and Java hacks. As long as none of the advanced features are needed.

But I guess the difference could be perceived as splitting hairs...
Successor, alternative / Child, sibling. All in the family, right ? :-)


It doesn't really matter. What does matter is addressing D's problems.

--anders

>>         D has built-in reg-exp, a la Ruby, &&
>
> Is this really practical in a compiled language ?

I'm not an expert, but I can see no practical impediment. Obviously there's the theoretical issue whereby one likes to avoid gratuitous mixing of language and libraries. I am usually a very strong advocate against, but in this case would make an exception because of the incredible utility.

>  Does the D community have
> a desperate need for built-in regexes ?
>
> Can you give me an example why built-in would win over a regex library ?
> ( genuinely curious ).
>

Look, it's like this. I use the 2000 boot of my Windows machine in preference to the XP for basically one reason: I can select text from command boxes without first having to do Alt-Space E K, which I find incredibly tiresome when I've already been incovenienced by having to use the damn mouse. The other influencing factor is the fact that XP is a steaming heap of omni-crashing shite, but it's really just the usability of the command-box. I know it's crazy, but it's the truth.

By the same token, I always reach for Ruby in preference to Python or Perl. It's built-in regex means it pantses Python every time, and the fact that I can read it and write extensions (recls/Ruby, OpenRJ/Ruby, and other proprietary ones) for it (which I've thus far found impossible to do for Perl) rules out Perl. I don't care how much more comprehensive Python's libraries are. Anytime I find a missing Ruby library, even if Python has it, I'll write one or write an extension, just so I can keep using that built-in regex and recls/Ruby.

So, if D wants to be considered a viable alternative to Python and Ruby, then I believe it needs built-in regex. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. Simple as that. Since it seems like D's not yet decided what it wants to be, or who it wants to serve (apart from people interested in language design and compiler implementation, of course), then the potential of being a scripting alternative raises this point. If that's not a viable option, then so be it. It can't be everything to everyone. It's just that as such it will, just like C/C++/Java/.NET, always be a poor cousin to Ruby and Perl for hardcore regex processing.

As I said in another thread the other day, the lack of libraries/track record/tools/v1.1 rules out D for things I'd use C/C++/.NET.Java for, so it's just not a competitor there. It's not even an issue. (I can't comment on when/if that'll change, as I've not been around enough, but I'd be interested to hear if/when people think it will ever reach this point.) Second, it's not, as yet, suitable as an alternative for scripting for most things I, for one, write scripts for.

Unfortunately, at least for me, the things that D _would_ be useful for, writing small utilities with short-medium term lifespans, is also not an option because Walter's not updated std.recls in Phobos since ~2003/4, and I use recls in just about every such utility I write, meaning that they're always done in C++ or in Ruby and never in D. I consider this to be a real shame, even if, perhaps, that's only for me. There was a time, a couple of years ago, when I used D a lot for such things, but now it's barely more than a passing fancy - there's just nothing useful that I can use D for any more. I'm hoping (1) that someone will come along and take Phobos out of Walter's hands and make it into something coherent and useful, and (2) that I can squeeze the time this year to do some DTL (and to put include some of that in the next volume of my book, which I'll be starting work on in Mar/Apr). Absent such changes, I guess I'll continue to be a part-timer. ;-/

Matthew

P.S. Sorry to sound so negative. I still have high hopes for D, just my glass-half-empty side is beginning to "Show me the money" on all my non-paying activities.

"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:drgk9o$22kr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Charles" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:drg2mr$1hrg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>>         D has built-in reg-exp, a la Ruby, &&
>>
>> Is this really practical in a compiled language ?  Does the D community
>> have
>> a desperate need for built-in regexes ?
>>
>> Can you give me an example why built-in would win over a regex library ?
>> ( genuinely curious ).
>
> Not only that, but D's support for regex's is far superior to C++'s (see Eric Anderton's regex template library).

So what? Who ever mentioned C++'s regex, which, fwiw, I rate very poorly. No-one in their right mind would do regex in C++ unless they had to. D's being better than C++'s is a furphy. (As for how good it is, I have no opinion, although I'm led to believe it's good.)

> I don't see that Ruby has more than a trivial advantage here, if that.

One man's trivia ...

My point is, D's casting about like a beached fish looking for someone/something to be better than. _If_ it wants to be considered as looking like an option for hard-core regex, then it needs to be as usable as Perl and Ruby in this respect. If it isn't then forget it. Can't bring a knife to a gun-fight - go to a knife fight instead.

If that's not what D wants to be, then what does it want to be? (This is not rhetorical, I'm genuinely interested in getting an update on this issue.) Whatever that may be, can you give me an update on what current/forthcoming features will give it the advantage in that arena?