http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=520302

Walter Bright Wrote:

> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=520302

Yah, D exposure! :)

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:20:03 +1300, Michael P. <baseball.mjp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=520302
>
> Yah, D exposure! :)


Its all negative exposure though. I hate it when I keep reading D is dead sort of messages. On this news group it is so alive.

Michael P. wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
> 
>> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=520302
> 
> Yah, D exposure! :)

These threads pop on on GDNet every couple of months or so. They also posted a sample chapter from Learn to Tango with D. The exposure is an ongoing thing.

It's unfortunate that a few prominent posters will always jump into these threads and diss D without much consideration. No telling how many minds they poison when they do, given that the lion's share of the GDNet audience are largely inexperienced. They'll take as gospel what anyone with a high rating says. So when they do pop up, it's good to get a few advocates in there to counter the misinformation.

Hello Mike,

> Michael P. wrote:
> 
>> Walter Bright Wrote:
>> 
>>> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=520302
>>> 
>> Yah, D exposure! :)
>> 
> These threads pop on on GDNet every couple of months or so. They also
> posted a sample chapter from Learn to Tango with D. The exposure is an
> ongoing thing.
> 
> It's unfortunate that a few prominent posters will always jump into
> these threads and diss D without much consideration. No telling how
> many minds they poison when they do, given that the lion's share of
> the GDNet audience are largely inexperienced. They'll take as gospel
> what anyone with a high rating says. So when they do pop up, it's good
> to get a few advocates in there to counter the misinformation.
> 


While some of the posts are frustratingly ignorant, I have to admit that quite a few of the complaints against D are actually valid ones.  What's good to see, however, is the level-headed response that you, Tom S. and Bill Baxter offer in support of D.  Admit where it is weak; defend where it is strong.  I'm sure people will get their noses out of joint anyway... but your responses are much more likely to calm the storm and funnel the conversation into a more fair analysis. 

-JJR

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:15:00 +1300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=520302

I had another look at that thread today and noticed a post that says "D doesn't have static type checking".
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=520302&whichpage=3&#3380985

Wikipedia says "A programming language is said to use static typing when type checking is performed during compile-time as opposed to run-time. Examples of languages that use static typing include .. C, C++, ......"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system#Static_typing

Should I just ignore that forum post or can someone clarify.

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tim M <a@b.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:15:00 +1300, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=520302
>
> I had another look at that thread today and noticed a post that says "D
> doesn't have static type checking".
> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=520302&whichpage=3&#3380985
>
> Wikipedia says "A programming language is said to use static typing when type checking is performed during compile-time as opposed to run-time. Examples of languages that use static typing include .. C, C++, ......" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system#Static_typing
>
> Should I just ignore that forum post or can someone clarify.

Read the whole thread.  The guy is just being a doofus.  He says "it's not static type checking" and then later says that the definition above on Wikipedia is just "one of two definitions of static type checking", and he's using the other one.  Well ok dude, in that case you were just deliberately ignoring the other (more mainstream) definition in order to be a pain in the butt.

Feel free to reply if you don't think he made it obvious in his later replies that he's just trying to be annoying and pedantic.

---bb

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Bill Baxter <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote:
> Read the whole thread.  The guy is just being a doofus.  He says "it's not static type checking" and then later says that the definition above on Wikipedia is just "one of two definitions of static type checking", and he's using the other one.  Well ok dude, in that case you were just deliberately ignoring the other (more mainstream) definition in order to be a pain in the butt.
>
> Feel free to reply if you don't think he made it obvious in his later replies that he's just trying to be annoying and pedantic.

Lol, he even says at one point that D is "less type safe than Python."
 Uh, what?  That doesn't hold true in any case.

"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.441.1232294002.22690.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Bill Baxter <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Read the whole thread.  The guy is just being a doofus.  He says "it's not static type checking" and then later says that the definition above on Wikipedia is just "one of two definitions of static type checking", and he's using the other one.  Well ok dude, in that case you were just deliberately ignoring the other (more mainstream) definition in order to be a pain in the butt.
>>
>> Feel free to reply if you don't think he made it obvious in his later replies that he's just trying to be annoying and pedantic.
>
> Lol, he even says at one point that D is "less type safe than Python." Uh, what?  That doesn't hold true in any case.

I just read though and think I know what he means, and made a reply to that effect (but also pointing out why he's still wrong).

The fact that all of that garbage is coming from an apperent *staff* member doesn't appear to speak very highly for gamedev.net. (But then again, neither does TANSTAAF. I met him in person one time; couldn't believe how much of an ass he was. Not a "thinks-he-knows-it-all" ass like this guy, but just the regular kind of ass. But then, maybe he was just having a bad day *shrug*.)