On 05/04/2010 03:32 PM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
Hi folks,
I just read a provocative critique of a blog article comparing C++ to
Lisp:
http://funcall.blogspot.com/2010/05/c-vs-lisp.html
I've enjoyed using Lisp languages in the past, and appreciate that D
offers a lot of metaprogramming features that could probably result in a
cleaner, shorter equivalent than the worked C++ example in the articles.
Not looking for any language wars here: I just thought someone might
enjoy discussing features of D that put it ahead of C++ in this type of
programming.
Best,
Graham
(format t "~A { ~A }~%" num (reverse words))
could be translated to
writefln("%s { %s }", num, retro(words));
except it seems like writefln doesn't actually print out the contents of
an arbitrary range.
Personally, I much prefer d to lisp regarding hash tables, and I think
d's ranges is a cleaner abstraction than whatever lisp has or doesn't have.
I do miss lisp's macros when programming in d, though. Sometimes
template or string mixins do the job well enough, sometimes they don't.
Things like reduce!("f(a) > b")(range), where f isn't defined in
std.algorithm, or it's defined as something else (does this actually
happen?)
