On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:10:09 +0300
ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> this was a hard move, as i had to drop all my fpc libraries and start writing new ones for C.

p.s. transition to D is much easier, as i can use all my C libraries in D. thanks gods that i didn't switched to C++!

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 11:16:09 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:10:09 +0300
> ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> this was a hard move, as i had to drop all my fpc libraries and start
>> writing new ones for C.
>
> p.s. transition to D is much easier, as i can use all my C libraries in
> D. thanks gods that i didn't switched to C++!

here c means language or drive?

On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:24:44 +0000
Sag Academy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> here c means language or drive?
i never used CP/M for work.

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 11:04:03 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
> Why drop down to C/C++?
>
> It would be like saying you need to drop down to them from D.

Not sure what you meant here. Cocoa+tooling provides a fairly high level environment. You drop down to C when you need speed or low level interfacing. It was only an example, you could pick any high level environment.

> C suffers from its designers not wanting to acknowledge what other systems programmers were doing, not from BCPL design.

Well, I am not really sure if C suffers all that much. It was an improvement on BCPL and aimed for easy porting so you can port to new hardware platforms easily. And has been rather successful at that. D is nowhere near that level of platform support.

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 11:57:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 11:04:03 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>> Why drop down to C/C++?
>>
>> It would be like saying you need to drop down to them from D.
>
> Not sure what you meant here. Cocoa+tooling provides a fairly high level environment. You drop down to C when you need speed or low level interfacing. It was only an example, you could pick any high level environment.

I don't need to drop out to C from Objective-C or Swift.

Objective-C is a C superset and Swift offers the required unsafe constructs for the ultimate performance if I really want to.

My remark was that what should be emphasized is coding in a more performance aware style, no need to switch languages.

--
Paulo

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 11:29:02 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:24:44 +0000
> Sag Academy via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> here c means language or drive?
> i never used CP/M for work.

Wow. I did use it, but only at school. :)

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 12:39:37 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
> Objective-C is a C superset and Swift offers the required unsafe constructs for the ultimate performance if I really want to.
>
> My remark was that what should be emphasized is coding in a more performance aware style, no need to switch languages.

Objective-C is a C superset in name, but not in spirit. Objective-C/Cocoa is to a large extent a parallell universe. If you want to go for performant C you have to drop down to CoreFoundation et al.

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 13:02:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 12:39:37 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
>> Objective-C is a C superset and Swift offers the required unsafe constructs for the ultimate performance if I really want to.
>>
>> My remark was that what should be emphasized is coding in a more performance aware style, no need to switch languages.
>
> Objective-C is a C superset in name, but not in spirit. Objective-C/Cocoa is to a large extent a parallell universe. If you want to go for performant C you have to drop down to CoreFoundation et al.

Don't blame a library, for a language layer what matters is the language grammar. :)

--
Paulo