Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:01:29 +, ayush wrote: Is D a lot like c++ ? I am currently midway through learning c++ and I also want to learn D . So should i focus on one or learn both together? Will I find learning D easy if I already know c++ ? D is like C++, but made by human beings for human beings. and C++ is made by martians for monkeys. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:01:31 UTC, ayush wrote: Is D a lot like c++? Enough. So should i focus on one or learn both together? You can study both together, although it is better to focus on one. Will I find learning D easy if I already know c++? Yes.
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:35:18 + ayush via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:13:40 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:01:31 UTC, ayush wrote: Is D a lot like c++? Enough. So should i focus on one or learn both together? You can study both together, although it is better to focus on one. Will I find learning D easy if I already know c++? Yes. So on which language should I focus(learn) first D is much easier to learn so I will start with it. And then you can try learn C++ if you still want and need it.
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:13:40 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:01:31 UTC, ayush wrote: Is D a lot like c++? Enough. So should i focus on one or learn both together? You can study both together, although it is better to focus on one. Will I find learning D easy if I already know c++? Yes. So on which language should I focus(learn) first
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:01:31 UTC, ayush wrote: Is D a lot like c++ ? I am currently midway through learning c++ and I also want to learn D . So should i focus on one or learn both together? Will I find learning D easy if I already know c++ ? D is very much like C++, but the biggest issue I found moving from C++ to D was trying to apply C++ idioms that only existed to work around ugly C++ warts(i.e, CRTP)
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:44:50 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote: D is much easier to learn so I will start with it. And then you can try learn C++ if you still want and need it. Yes, but in D for beginners little literature, so I would recommend starting with C++.
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:56:28 +, Dennis Ritchie wrote: On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:44:50 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote: D is much easier to learn so I will start with it. And then you can try learn C++ if you still want and need it. Yes, but in D for beginners little literature, so I would recommend starting with C++. there are alot of books on C++ 'cause C++ is insanely complicated and inconsistend. D design is *MUCH* better, so D doesn't need so many books teaching arcane art of programming. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:56:29 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote: On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 13:44:50 UTC, Daniel Kozák wrote: D is much easier to learn so I will start with it. And then you can try learn C++ if you still want and need it. Yes, but in D for beginners little literature, so I would recommend starting with C++. There is no need for dozens of books. I would even go as far as to say that the existing ones are more than enough. http://wiki.dlang.org/Books
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 14:47:22 UTC, ketmar wrote: there are alot of books on C++ 'cause C++ is insanely complicated and inconsistend. D design is *MUCH* better, so D doesn't need so many books teaching arcane art of programming. Well, in principle, can be started with a D, but personally, I started actually with ANSI C.
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 18:57:51 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/12/2015 06:01 AM, ayush wrote:
Is D a lot like c++ ?
I came to D from C++. I remember the following being notable
differences:
- In D, classes have reference semantics. I quickly realized
that this is not an issue because so many of my C++ types were
hand-reference-typified :p by this idiom, almost everywhere:
class C { /* ... */ };
typedef boost::shared_ptrC CPtr;
void foo(CPtr c);
This is a common mistake. In 99 percent of cases you want to use
a std::unique_ptr. std::shared_ptr is rarely common and often an
indication of an error in design. In general, there is exactly
one owner only.
But I think you know that already. :)
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 18:57:51 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: If you are a mortal like myself, you may find out years later that you are still at the midway point. Happened to me several times when I was learning C++. :) О, yeah.
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On 03/12/2015 06:01 AM, ayush wrote:
Is D a lot like c++ ?
I came to D from C++. I remember the following being notable differences:
- In D, classes have reference semantics. I quickly realized that this
is not an issue because so many of my C++ types were
hand-reference-typified :p by this idiom, almost everywhere:
class C { /* ... */ };
typedef boost::shared_ptrC CPtr;
void foo(CPtr c);
- Garbage collector took longer to get used to. There are some issues
with the spec or implementation that some objects may never be
destructed (or is it finalized?).
Other than issues like that, everything in D feels like a fresh air.
I am currently midway through learning c++
If you are a mortal like myself, you may find out years later that you
are still at the midway point. Happened to me several times when I was
learning C++. :)
and I also want to learn D . So should i focus on one or learn
both together?
Economically, C++ may make more sense. But if you are learning just for
yourself, perhaps for fun, then I recommend D.
Will I find learning D easy if I already know c++ ?
I think so.
Ali
moving from c++ to D is easy?
Is D a lot like c++ ? I am currently midway through learning c++ and I also want to learn D . So should i focus on one or learn both together? Will I find learning D easy if I already know c++ ?
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On 03/12/2015 01:19 PM, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 18:57:51 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/12/2015 06:01 AM, ayush wrote:
Is D a lot like c++ ?
I came to D from C++. I remember the following being notable
differences:
- In D, classes have reference semantics. I quickly realized that this
is not an issue because so many of my C++ types were
hand-reference-typified :p by this idiom, almost everywhere:
class C { /* ... */ };
typedef boost::shared_ptrC CPtr;
void foo(CPtr c);
This is a common mistake. In 99 percent of cases you want to use a
std::unique_ptr.
Agreed. Here is an excerpt from a comment from one of our header files:
We could not use boost::unique_ptr because the version of the Boost
library that we currently use does not include it.
std::shared_ptr is rarely common and often an indication of an
error in design. In general, there is exactly one owner only.
Of course. We had definitions like the following as well, where the C
objects are stored in:
typedef vectorCPtr MyCs;
But I think you know that already. :)
I think so. :) Maybe we should pass weak_ptrs around instead of
shared_ptr. Anyway... That's old code and this is a D newsgroup.
Ali
Re: moving from c++ to D is easy?
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 21:41:07 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/12/2015 01:19 PM, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 18:57:51 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 03/12/2015 06:01 AM, ayush wrote:
Is D a lot like c++ ?
I came to D from C++. I remember the following being notable
differences:
- In D, classes have reference semantics. I quickly realized
that this
is not an issue because so many of my C++ types were
hand-reference-typified :p by this idiom, almost everywhere:
class C { /* ... */ };
typedef boost::shared_ptrC CPtr;
void foo(CPtr c);
This is a common mistake. In 99 percent of cases you want to
use a
std::unique_ptr.
Agreed. Here is an excerpt from a comment from one of our
header files:
We could not use boost::unique_ptr because the version of the
Boost library that we currently use does not include it.
std::shared_ptr is rarely common and often an indication of an
error in design. In general, there is exactly one owner only.
Of course. We had definitions like the following as well, where
the C objects are stored in:
typedef vectorCPtr MyCs;
But I think you know that already. :)
I think so. :) Maybe we should pass weak_ptrs around instead of
shared_ptr.
You could also pass raw pointers around. Since they have no owner
it's fine. Or references.
Anyway... That's old code and this is a D newsgroup.
Ali
Agreed.
Re: Moving from C to D
do IN become in maybe? BLS Wrote: BCS wrote: Reply to bob, sorry i copy wrong line. how do i do this line: int PASCAL FAR mycnt ( IN SOCKET s, IN const struct sockaddr FAR *name, IN int namelen ); bob Wrote: step 1 would be get the output from the preprocessor and take a look at it. I'm guessing that PASCAL, FAR and IN are macros step 0 is try htod: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/htod.html I think int PASCAL FAR mycnt() becomes : extern (Pascal) int mycnt() The FAR* thingy seems to be a 16 bit relict... Guess the IN is not nessesary in D..., not sure though Bjoern
Re: Moving from C to D
bob wrote: do IN become in maybe? BLS Wrote: BCS wrote: Reply to bob, sorry i copy wrong line. how do i do this line: int PASCAL FAR mycnt ( IN SOCKET s, IN const struct sockaddr FAR *name, IN int namelen ); bob Wrote: step 1 would be get the output from the preprocessor and take a look at it. I'm guessing that PASCAL, FAR and IN are macros step 0 is try htod: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/htod.html I think int PASCAL FAR mycnt() becomes : extern (Pascal) int mycnt() The FAR* thingy seems to be a 16 bit relict... Guess the IN is not nessesary in D..., not sure though Bjoern in means pass argument by value, and is the default for arguments. Also, I believe that PASCAL is the same as the Windows cc, so my guess at the conversion would be: For D 1.x: extern(Windows) int mycnt ( SOCKET s, sockaddr* name, int namelen ); For D 2.x: extern(Windows) int mycnt ( SOCKET s, const sockaddr* name, int namelen ); Note that you'd have to supply definitions of SOCKET and sockaddr. -- Daniel
Re: Moving from C to D
BLS wrote: Daniel Keep wrote: [snip] Also, I believe that PASCAL is the same as the Windows cc, so my guess at the conversion would be: For D 1.x: extern(Windows) int mycnt ( SOCKET s, sockaddr* name, int namelen ); For D 2.x: extern(Windows) int mycnt ( SOCKET s, const sockaddr* name, int namelen ); Note that you'd have to supply definitions of SOCKET and sockaddr. -- Daniel I am pretty sure that PASCAL means __pascal so the D1 translation is : extern (Pascal) int mycnt ( SOCKET s, sockaddr* name, int namelen ); See :http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/htomodule.html at the bottom Bjoern Aah yes; I didn't realise Pascal was defined; I thought it was limited to C, D, Windows and System for D1, adding C++ for D2. -- Daniel
Moving from C to D
im trying to convert my code from c to d and i have a question, how would i convert this line void notify ( struct dev_notify * ); thank you in advance
Re: Moving from C to D
Reply to bob, sorry i copy wrong line. how do i do this line: int PASCAL FAR mycnt ( IN SOCKET s, IN const struct sockaddr FAR *name, IN int namelen ); bob Wrote: step 1 would be get the output from the preprocessor and take a look at it. I'm guessing that PASCAL, FAR and IN are macros step 0 is try htod: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/htod.html
