> "C++ - we can rebuild it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish

LOL!

Walter Bright wrote:
> "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dvs65b$1dee$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>How about: D - Work smarter, not harder.
>>?
> 
> 
> It's too vague. Remember the Java one - "write once, run everywhere"? That was very effective. Need something like that for D.
> 
> C++'s catchphrase was originally "C with Classes", and later "A better C."
> 
> Andrei sent me a list of what pops in his head when he thinks about a language:
> --------------------
> 1. FORTRAN. "First high-level language for scientific computing"
> 2. LISP. "Lambda. Garbage collection. S-expressions."
> 3. C. "Portable, efficient assembler. Systems programming"
> 4. C++. "Multiparadigm"
> 5. Perl. "Regular expressions. String manipulation."
> 6. Java. "Virtual Machine (= Write Once, ...). Safety."
> 7. Smalltalk. "Pure object-oriented."
> 8. Haskell. "Functional. Type inference."
> 9. Eiffel. "Contracts."
> -------------------------
> 
> "A better C++" - don't want to copy Bjarne
> "C++ reloaded" - too hollywood
> "C++ version 2" - <g>
> "C++ - we can rebuilt it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish
> "C++ streamlined" - ? 
> 
> 

Maybe lead in with:

The six million dollar language.

Charles wrote:
>  > "C++ - we can rebuild it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dvs65b$1dee$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> How about: D - Work smarter, not harder.
>>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's too vague. Remember the Java one - "write once, run everywhere"? That was very effective. Need something like that for D.
>>
>> C++'s catchphrase was originally "C with Classes", and later "A better C."
>>
>> Andrei sent me a list of what pops in his head when he thinks about a language:
>> --------------------
>> 1. FORTRAN. "First high-level language for scientific computing"
>> 2. LISP. "Lambda. Garbage collection. S-expressions."
>> 3. C. "Portable, efficient assembler. Systems programming"
>> 4. C++. "Multiparadigm"
>> 5. Perl. "Regular expressions. String manipulation."
>> 6. Java. "Virtual Machine (= Write Once, ...). Safety."
>> 7. Smalltalk. "Pure object-oriented."
>> 8. Haskell. "Functional. Type inference."
>> 9. Eiffel. "Contracts."
>> -------------------------
>>
>> "A better C++" - don't want to copy Bjarne
>> "C++ reloaded" - too hollywood
>> "C++ version 2" - <g>
>> "C++ - we can rebuilt it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish
>> "C++ streamlined" - ?
>>

> Isn't it possible to define D without C++ as a comparison ?

I agree, some of my freinds were turned off at the mere mention of C++ : "reengineering of C and C++" .

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> "A better C++" - don't want to copy Bjarne
>> "C++ reloaded" - too hollywood
>> "C++ version 2" - <g>
>> "C++ - we can rebuilt it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish
>> "C++ streamlined" - ? 
> 
> 
> Isn't it possible to define D without C++ as a comparison ?
> 
> It seems to always be: better than C++ at this, better than
> C++ at that, and so on. Just seems like envy, after a while...
> 
> Other than that, I'm all for a little (justified) C++ bashing.
> 
> --anders

David L. Davis wrote:
> In article <dvsboj$1l3m$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>>
>> "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dvs65b$1dee$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> How about: D - Work smarter, not harder.
>>> ?
>> It's too vague. Remember the Java one - "write once, run everywhere"? That was very effective. Need something like that for D.
>>
>> C++'s catchphrase was originally "C with Classes", and later "A better C."
>>
>> Andrei sent me a list of what pops in his head when he thinks about a language:
>> --------------------
>> 1. FORTRAN. "First high-level language for scientific computing"
>> 2. LISP. "Lambda. Garbage collection. S-expressions."
>> 3. C. "Portable, efficient assembler. Systems programming"
>> 4. C++. "Multiparadigm"
>> 5. Perl. "Regular expressions. String manipulation."
>> 6. Java. "Virtual Machine (= Write Once, ...). Safety."
>> 7. Smalltalk. "Pure object-oriented."
>> 8. Haskell. "Functional. Type inference."
>> 9. Eiffel. "Contracts."
>> -------------------------
>>
>> "A better C++" - don't want to copy Bjarne
>> "C++ reloaded" - too hollywood
>> "C++ version 2" - <g>
>> "C++ - we can rebuilt it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar mannish
>> "C++ streamlined" - ? 
>>
>>
> 
> Here's a few I came up with:
> ----------------------------
> Get more from less code: "Readability, Performability, Maintainability!" (RPMs)
> D makes the complex...simple.
> Focus more on the end result, while writing less code to get there.
> 
> David L.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html

I like this idea. How about this one.

:D makes the simple simple, and the complex... simple.

Walter Bright wrote:

> 
> "pragma" <pragma_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dvs65b$1dee$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> How about: D - Work smarter, not harder.
>> ?
> 
> It's too vague. Remember the Java one - "write once, run everywhere"? That was very effective. Need something like that for D.
> 
> C++'s catchphrase was originally "C with Classes", and later "A better C."
> 
> Andrei sent me a list of what pops in his head when he thinks about a language:
> --------------------
> 1. FORTRAN. "First high-level language for scientific computing"
> 2. LISP. "Lambda. Garbage collection. S-expressions."
> 3. C. "Portable, efficient assembler. Systems programming"
> 4. C++. "Multiparadigm"
> 5. Perl. "Regular expressions. String manipulation."
> 6. Java. "Virtual Machine (= Write Once, ...). Safety."
> 7. Smalltalk. "Pure object-oriented."
> 8. Haskell. "Functional. Type inference."
> 9. Eiffel. "Contracts."
> -------------------------
> 
> "A better C++" - don't want to copy Bjarne
> "C++ reloaded" - too hollywood
> "C++ version 2" - <g>
> "C++ - we can rebuilt it, we have the technology" - 6 million dollar
> mannish "C++ streamlined" - ?

D = C + (C++) + Java - (all the crap)

or

"C++ and Java without all the crap"

I hate marketing.

~John Demme

kris wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> "kris" <foo@bar.com> wrote in message news:dvra93$cdi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> Not to be a party-pooper, but I got the impression that catchphrases are a bit 80's? Does anyone buy into that type of pitch anymore?
>>> I mean, when was the last time you swallowed a line like "Power, Performance, Productivity" from an eager and straight-faced salesperson?
>>
>>
>> That's not a good catchphrase. But when you've got a few seconds to make a first impression before they turn the page, a good one helps. 
> 
> In terms of print, there's a number of ways to do that. A catch-phrase is one, but requires parsing and semantic analysis (brain time). Catchy names are apparently processed in a related but much less immediately taxing fashion; akin to facial recognition? Even if we don't "get it", there's often enough interest to turn the page back over ~ just like when you see a face you almost recognise, and a whole lot of dedicated effort goes into resolving that ~ sometimes for days <g>
> 
> An interesting logo, or anything pictorial that stands out from the background (such as a comic strip) are apparently much more noticable than catch-phrases. That's hardly surprising given that our predator eyes excel at isolating 'interest' from vast quantities of background noise.
> 
> 2 cents
> 
> p.s. I guess you didn't care much for "Get it on!" and "Amber" then? :)

So every time we code something with :D (Amber) we are getting it on with a sexy language? lmao.

clayasaurus wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> If you could  sum up the essence of D in a "high concept", what would it be?
>>
>> http://www.themegahitmovies.com/highconcept.htm
>>
>> Some particularly bad ones:
>>
>> 1) Write once, debug everywhere
>> 2) Tastes great, less filling.
>> 3) Choosy programmers choose D.
>> 4) C's dead, Jim.
>> 5) So sophisticated, even we don't understand it.
>> 6) Resistance is useless.
>>
>> Some marginally better ones:
>>
>> 1) Power, Performance, Productivity
>>
>>
> 
> A C++ retailored for the new millennium.
> 

digg--

jcc7 wrote:
> In article <dvr3n6$2u4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
>> If you could  sum up the essence of D in a "high concept", what would it be?
>>
>> http://www.themegahitmovies.com/highconcept.htm
> 
> I'm not sure I fully grasp you're looking for, but I'll throw out some ideas.
> (Don't be too critical guys; I'm just trying to brainstorm.)
> 
> 
> The power that you want -- the safety that you need
> 
> Powerful syntax with a blazing-fast compiler
> 
> Like an ultra-modern C, an enjoyable C++, and a Java without the training wheels
> -- all rolled into one programming language.
> 
> The freedom to program effectively and efficiently.
> 

I like this one.

> Power for productivity but safety to prevent bugs (I think this is long and
> awkward, but there's a good idea in there trying to escape).
> 
> jcc7

Knud Sørensen wrote:
> Here some from me.
> 
> 
> 1) The best D you will ever get in programming. (yea, like the one on the D page) 2) Write once and unit test everything.
> 3) With D you don't need a debugger.  (That's when Walter add null ref. check and/or call log)
> 4) D the fastest way to fast code.
> 5) Real men/programmers know how to do D.
> 6) Get D !/?
> 7) It is programming but not as we know it. 8) Basic safety and FORTRAN speed.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:00:18 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> If you could  sum up the essence of D in a "high concept", what would it be?
>>
>> http://www.themegahitmovies.com/highconcept.htm
>>
>> Some particularly bad ones:
>>
>> 1) Write once, debug everywhere
>> 2) Tastes great, less filling.
>> 3) Choosy programmers choose D.
>> 4) C's dead, Jim.
>> 5) So sophisticated, even we don't understand it.
>> 6) Resistance is useless.
>>
>> Some marginally better ones:
>>
>> 1) Power, Performance, Productivity
> 

D. The fastest way to the fastest code. Period.

This is the winner in my book.

Walter Bright wrote:
> If you could  sum up the essence of D in a "high concept", what would it be?
> 
> http://www.themegahitmovies.com/highconcept.htm
> 
> Some particularly bad ones:
> 
> 1) Write once, debug everywhere
> 2) Tastes great, less filling.
> 3) Choosy programmers choose D.
> 4) C's dead, Jim.
> 5) So sophisticated, even we don't understand it.
> 6) Resistance is useless.
> 
> Some marginally better ones:
> 
> 1) Power, Performance, Productivity
> 
> 

"With D you can get everywhere you want to be." - with a woman's chest in the background wearing a bra consisting of two 'D's -- sex sells.

:D

Regards,
Alex