Still waiting the Go version of this very useful D code...
I'm not asking you to browse the web to find to find most complex
declaration you can ever do in D, Go or C++ for instance.
I've never used such ridiculous code in my Go/D/C++/Java/C# applications,
and neither will you.
I'm just asking you show me how *simple* code in Go will become much more
complicated in D, as this is what you seem to think.
And I mean something we will all use all day long (ex: declaring or using
functions/types/arrays/slices/references/loops/etc etc), not the most
complicated code you can come up with.
THAT would be useful, and also a fair comparison between both languages.
Because from what I see below, I may think you couldn't manage to find such
an example
But maybe I'm wrong, I don't know...
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 9:33:48 AM UTC+1, Egon wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 10:51:43 UTC+3, ecstati...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> For all the common parts with Go (functions, methods, reference classes,
>> strings, arrays, slices, ranges, foreach, etc), honestly I don't know why
>> you say it's simpler in Go.
>>
>> Can you show me two examples of code side by side, and tell me "look how
>> much simpler it's with Go's" ?
>>
>> Because from what I read, I'm sometimes wondering if you really know that
>> the type declarations in D are MUCH simpler than in C/C++.
>>
>
> error* (**callbacks)(int);
>
> Error[] function(int)[][string] callbacks;
>
> var callbacks map[string]func(int) []error
>
>
>> For instance :
>>
>> int[]
>> first_array_of_ints,
>> second_array_of_ints;
>>
>> int[string]
>> first_map_of_ints_indexed_by_a_string,
>> second_map_of_ints_indexed_by_a_string;
>>
>> TYPE
>> first_reference_to_an_object_of_this_type,
>> second_reference_to_an_object_of_this_type;
>>
>> So, with all due respect, how many applications have you already
>> programmed in D before telling me that Go's syntax is so simpler to use and
>> to learn ?
>>
>> I agree there are much *less* possibilities in Go, but that doesn't mean
>> it's automatically a simpler language to learn for all the common parts
>> with D. Seriously.
>>
>> Because I had to learn both, and at least for a C++/Java/C# programmer
>> like me, D transition was almost immediate, really a matter of hours to
>> become comfortable with the language. Everything was alike, but much
>> simpler and easier than in C++.
>>
>> Believe me or not, I've taught programming with D to my two teenagers
>> with D. Really.
>>
>> I've chosen it because it was the only strongly-typed language close to
>> Javascript that was really easy to learn, while allowing them to quickly
>> switch to C++, Java or C# later if they wanted to.
>>
>> Go is much simpler than C++ too, I agree of course, but for having
>> learned both Go then D, again from the point of view of a former
>> C++/Java/C# programmer like me, I didn't feel that quickly at home with Go
>> than with D, mainly because Go diverged much more from its predecessors
>> than D from a syntactic point of view.
>>
>> So, again from a syntactic point of view, I don't think how you can
>> affirm that it's much easier in Go than in D to declare and use types,
>> references, functions, methods, slices, arrays, foreach, and all the common
>> stuff between both languages.
>>
>> Honestly, no offense intended.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 10:11:10 PM UTC+1, Doğan Kurt wrote:
>>>
>>> But from my personal experience, D is *at least* as easy to learn than
>>>> Go, if not easier.
>>>
>>>
>>> I seriously doubt, no offense. Go is so small and so intuitive, one can
>>> argue that there are people out there who knows most of the Go unknowingly
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Just the fact that it doesn't break much with the familiar syntax of C#,
>>>> Java, C++, etc helps a lot in making the transition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Go's syntax is very familiar to C, i've never heard it was an issue. The
>>> only think you must get used to is declarations and i LOVE the Go way. I
>>> remember the days i was struggling with C's declaration model, the spiral
>>> rule etc. sure we use typedefs but it rather feels like a hack.
>>> I can write any declaration no matter how complex it is, with my eyes
>>> closed in Go. It's so great.
>>>
>>> And genericity and polymorphism are invaluable tools when optimizing
>>>> code reuse without reducing execution speed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't ever remember duplicating any code in C. I can't understand how
>>> people are unable to write reusable code with C, seriously. Whenever i
>>> discuss this with a C++ programmer, they immediately share some generic Max
>>> function that works with int and double. I admit i use macros in that
>>> case, but come on it's not even 1% of the serious programming you do in C.
>>>
>>> If you are a competent C programmer (structured programming in general),
>>> you know how to write reusable code.
>>>
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
