On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 11:04:51 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:49:49 UTC, Dgame wrote:
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:40:33 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
However, Rust won't fare well in a head-to-head comparison
either, because of the issues
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:18:29 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Yes, disabling GC might have been a feature early on. But not
early on enough to not have core language features depending on
it, and not early enough to have a std not depending on it.
Modifying the std to be more compatible
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:49:49 UTC, Dgame wrote:
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:40:33 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
However, Rust won't fare well in a head-to-head comparison
either, because of the issues with back-pointers.
Could you explain this?
You often want back-pointers
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:18:29 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Rust has a OS being written right now. Does D has ? Anyone ever
wanted to use D to write a OS kernel, I doubt it.
https://github.com/PowerNex/PowerNex
https://github.com/Rikarin/Trinix
Id rather use a nice language as D to
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:18:29 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Rust has a OS being written right now. Does D has ? Anyone ever
wanted to use D to write a OS kernel
https://github.com/xomboverlord/xomb
https://github.com/PowerNex/PowerNex
https://github.com/JinShil/stm32f42_discovery_demo
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:40:33 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
However, Rust won't fare well in a head-to-head comparison
either, because of the issues with back-pointers.
Could you explain this?
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:18:29 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Rust has a OS being written right now. Does D has ? Anyone ever
wanted to use D to write a OS kernel, I doubt it.
Yes, a group started on it, but I don't think it reached
completion. Anyway, you see traces of interest around
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 10:18:29 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Id rather use a nice language as D to write new software, not
to port old **working** tools which are only maintained and
not developed to it. I see no sense for that.
And the reality of having ported the DMD frontend to D
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 08:28:31 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
abled. At the cost of being unable to use parts of the
Envy? Hardly. Being able to disable D's GC was a feature from
early on. Phobos has been modified over the years to make it
more compatible with that scenario, as was widely
On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 08:09:27 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Now my perception is that D tries hard to be both, with some
regrettable consequences. Started as a GC language with
language features which depend on GC, and a std which was done
for a GC language and has dependency on GC. But
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:28:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
So, if no one speaks up about how it's actually great to have a
GC, it starts seeming like we all think that D shouldn't have a
GC, which isn't the case at all.
- Jonathan M Davis
Having GC is awesome, it's like
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 03:28:15PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
> The problem is that there are some very vocal folks who complain about
> the GC, and then that often leads to folks thinking that there's a
> serious problem with the fact that D has a GC, when arguably,
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 22:37:54 UTC, Tony wrote:
Why would they choose D for low level programming when they
knew before they chose it that it had a Garbage Collector?
Because it was/is a work-in-progress when they first got
interested in it, and it was also advertised as a
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 21:11:06 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 19:42:28 UTC, Tony wrote:
Why would someone choose to use a language with a Garbage
Collector and then complain that the language has a Garbage
Collector?
People always complain about
On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 19:03:20 Dan Partelly via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 01:07:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 02, 2018 00:34:57 Nerve via Digitalmars-d
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018 at 19:42:28 UTC, Tony wrote:
Why would someone choose to use a language with a Garbage
Collector and then complain that the language has a Garbage
Collector?
People always complain about garbage collectors that freeze up
the process. Irrespective of the language.
Why would someone choose to use a language with a Garbage
Collector and then complain that the language has a Garbage
Collector?
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 11:53:38 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
You have to pick what you want to be good at. And that is the
main problem with the evolution of D; a lack of commitment to a
specific niche.
It has multiple personalities, but unlike C++ all of them are
discordant with
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 01:07:21 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 02, 2018 00:34:57 Nerve via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
> "C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
>
> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
I
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 04:43:42 UTC, codephantom wrote:
Well, consider the silent 'minority' too, who still think that
increasing performance, and reducing demands on resources,
still matter, a lot, and that we shouldn't just surrender this
just to make programmers more 'productive'
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 00:34:57 UTC, Nerve wrote:
I would simply add that the strongest vocalizations come from
those with objections. The silent majority that is perfectly
okay with GC and gets huge development complexity reductions
thanks to it rarely spare the energy to argue
On Tuesday, January 02, 2018 00:34:57 Nerve via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > "C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
> >
> > http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
>
> I would simply add that the strongest vocalizations come from
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
"C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
I would simply add that the strongest vocalizations come from
those with objections. The silent majority that is perfectly okay
with GC and
On Monday, 1 January 2018 at 05:29:06 UTC, Ali wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
"C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
So .. and this is more of a question, to the maintainers and
creators of D, what does
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
"C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
So .. and this is more of a question, to the maintainers and
creators of D, what does this mean for D, what is the road map
for D
- More
On Saturday, 23 December 2017 at 09:10:25 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/22/2017 7:23 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
I think we are now in a world where Rust is the zero cost
abstraction
language to replace C and C++, except for those who are
determined to
stay with C++ and evolve it.
Maybe it
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 16:51:45 UTC, Patrick Schluter
wrote:
That's the biggest problem with C++, they pile on relentlessly
half baked feature after half baked feature in a big dump that
no one with a life can ever grasp.
I think D has more first class language features (and thus
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 16:43:41 UTC, John Gabriele
wrote:
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 15:57:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto
wrote:
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 11:27:29 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 18:41 +, Laeeth Isharc via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
However the
On Friday, 29 December 2017 at 07:54:53 UTC, Mengu wrote:
On Friday, 29 December 2017 at 00:26:04 UTC, codephantom wrote:
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 08:53:25 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
[...]
I disagree.
[...]
syntax is not weird at all. it is ML-ish.
oh. I didn't know..
in any
On Friday, 29 December 2017 at 00:26:04 UTC, codephantom wrote:
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 08:53:25 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
[...]
I disagree.
[...]
syntax is not weird at all. it is ML-ish.
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 10:54:08 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
If you want to believe that fine. Clearly you are missing the
point I am making, which clearly must be my fault for bad
expression. Also clear it is not worth progressing this debate.
You are asking Walter to 'quantify'
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 11:27:29 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
However, in the end, the GStreamer core people know C, C++ a
bit, D not at all. I suspect even if the choice had been Rust
or D, Rust would have been chosen because it has no GC and D is
a GC language.
That is a little
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 10:57:55 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
Not sure which country this is an observation on, but again all
countries are different so a global opinion is not possible.
The problem in the UK is the shift from wholly government
funded tertiary education, to partially
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 08:53:25 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 03:34 +, codephantom via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
I tried Go. I didn't like it. Syntax changes were not I looked
at Rust, but never tried it, as I found the syntax to pretty
awful - and it reminded
On 12/28/2017 2:54 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
Clearly you are missing the point I
am making, which clearly must be my fault for bad expression.
Whether it's your fault or mine, I apparently have no idea what you mean by the
phrase "psychology based design".
Also clear it is not worth
On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 16:43 +, John Gabriele via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 15:57:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 11:27:29 UTC, Russel Winder
> > wrote:
> > >
[…]
> > Not only GStreamer, Rust is on its way to become an offical
> >
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 20:03:06 UTC, Joakim wrote:
The canonical example is how Apple doesn't compete on
feature/spec checklists but on an integrated experience that
just works better. That may be tougher to market for tech
users, but it is increasingly what people want, even many
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 18:13:41 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
The challenger has to offer something that the community value.
Rust offers memory safety over C. D offers "better C++". This
is the wrong message to achieve traction. D must offer
something that C++ does not offer.
If
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 15:57:18 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 11:27:29 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 18:41 +, Laeeth Isharc via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
However the GStreamer folk are backing Rust (for memory safety
issues noted
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 11:27:29 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 18:41 +, Laeeth Isharc via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
However the GStreamer folk are backing Rust (for memory safety
issues noted earlier) so even though D has a GStreamer binding
(thanks to Mike and
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
"C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
Aaaa... if only D had no GC!
But then there is no such thing as perfection in this world.
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 18:41 +, Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> That's an extremely odd way to conceive of D, IMO, like
> conceiving of a banana as being like an apple, only it tastes
> like a banana and has a different shape.
Not really. When you write a function and give it
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 01:23 +, codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> […]
>
> But the design of graduate studies really needs to be radically
> transformed, as they simply try to pack far too much in...leaving
> students without any time to reflect on what they're doing, or
> why they're
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 16:44 +, Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> That's like saying the way George Soros trades is not based on
> psychology because he doesn't refer to the literature in making
> and articulating his decision-making process. Instead people
> write papers
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 20:49 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 12/27/2017 8:29 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> > This does not support the original claim that the design of D by
> > you is
> > based on psychology. It may be based on your perception of other
> > programmers needs, which
On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 03:34 +, codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
[…]
> I tried Go. I didn't like it. Syntax changes were not necessary,
> and I got the feeling that the philosophy of Go, is that
> programmers are incompetent and need training wheels. It wasn't
> for me.
The core of
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 14:36 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> […]
>
> I found this out by asking the sales guys what feature of ZTC++ was
> closing the
> deal - X, Y, Z, all the features I held dear. They'd say nope.
> Customers wanted
> to use C++ for Win16, ZTC++ supported that,
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 04:49:04 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:29 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
This does not support the original claim that the design of D
by you is
based on psychology. It may be based on your perception of
other
programmers needs, which is fine per se, but
On 12/27/2017 8:29 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
This does not support the original claim that the design of D by you is
based on psychology. It may be based on your perception of other
programmers needs, which is fine per se, but that is not psychology-
based design.
All programming language
On 12/27/2017 7:01 PM, rjframe wrote:
The MSVC compiler does buffer security checks, by default, in release
builds[1].
This is simply not checkable memory safety. All it is is setting aside some
memory locations in strategic places with known values in that memory. If those
values change,
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 02:53:56 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 02:48:11 UTC, codephantom
wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYEKEIpM2zo
Thanks Ill watch it, but when I mentioned worse is better I
didn't had C++ in mind. I thought at new language who
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:57:41 +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 27.12.2017 16:37, rjframe wrote:
>> If the programmer opts-in to those checks... it's a +1 for pragmatism
>> but does make marketing the language a bit weird -- one-liners spawn
>> objections to the integrity of the claim (such as a
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 00:36:32 UTC, Dan partelly wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 22:36:08 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:57 AM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
It's much better to have a monopoly of some niche or set of
niches and to use energy from success to expand out
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 02:48:11 UTC, codephantom wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYEKEIpM2zo
Thanks Ill watch it, but when I mentioned worse is better I
didn't had C++ in mind. I thought at new language who gains
traction lately but it is clearly inferior to D technically.
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 02:39:58 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Id wish things would be so simple. Unfortunately, no, there is
no void to be filled by a monopoly here. It's a place full of
competition, and to gain a spot (not bene, a spot, the monopoly
doesnt exist) you have to
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 02:16:03 UTC, codephantom wrote:
No need to create one. It already exists.
The need for highly flexible, portable, powerful, fast,
compiled language, that is easy to understand and pleasant to
work with.
Id wish things would be so simple. Unfortunately,
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 00:36:32 UTC, Dan partelly wrote:
Can you find a similar void today which is to be filled by D ?
Better yet can you create one ?
No need to create one. It already exists.
The need for highly flexible, portable, powerful, fast, compiled
language, that is easy
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 20:24:04 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
This illustrates my point if it was unclear:
C++:
int foo(int* p) { return p[1]; }
int bar(int i) { return foo(); }
clang++ -c test.cpp -Wall
D:
@safe:
int foo(int* p) { return p[1]; }
int bar(int
On Thursday, 28 December 2017 at 00:16:39 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Phobos has undergone several waves of grand renaming. At some
point this has to stop and we need stability.
There is nothing better for a progamming language than stability.
There is nothing worse for a progamming language
On 28.12.2017 01:16, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/27/2017 3:33 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
_Phobos_ does not take this point into account though.
I.e., this seems like an excellent time to bring this up again:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4535
Phobos has undergone several waves of grand
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 22:36:08 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:57 AM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
It's much better to have a monopoly of some niche or set of
niches and to use energy from success to expand out from
there, than to have a small market share of an enormous market.
On 12/27/2017 3:33 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
_Phobos_ does not take this point into account though.
I.e., this seems like an excellent time to bring this up again:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4535
Phobos has undergone several waves of grand renaming. At some point this has to
stop
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
"C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
"Maybe D is right about GC after all"
or maybe not...
On 27.12.2017 16:37, rjframe wrote:
If the programmer opts-in to those checks... it's a +1 for pragmatism but
does make marketing the language a bit weird -- one-liners spawn
objections to the integrity of the claim (such as a portion of this
thread; if there are objections within the community,
On 27.12.2017 21:48, Walter Bright wrote:
Another is it is known that people have cognitive problems with
negation. It often just does not register in the mind.
_Phobos_ does not take this point into account though.
I.e., this seems like an excellent time to bring this up again:
On 12/27/2017 8:57 AM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
It's much better to have a monopoly of some niche or set of niches and to use
energy from success to expand out from there, than to have a small market share
of an enormous market.
Back in the 80's, Zortech made a killing because we had the only C++
On 12/27/2017 1:00 PM, Atila Neves wrote:
I nearly always reorganise my code so that my `if` statements are positive
precisely because of this. The only times I don't is when the negative branch is
a lot shorter, so I "get it out of the way" sooner. Even then I try to rename
the boolean value
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 20:48:12 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/27/2017 8:38 AM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 07:44:30 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
The psychological cognitive issues around negation are known,
but I rarely see deliberate efforts by
On 12/27/2017 8:38 AM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 07:44:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/26/2017 4:18 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
All of which brings us full circle: when it comes to programming
languages and software development, it is all about advocacy,
prejudice,
On 12/27/2017 8:34 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 14:54 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
That's right. C++ is based on faith in the programmer using best
practices. D is
not based on faith, it can be automatically checked.
"Can be" is not the same as "is". Perhaps
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 21:27:12 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2017-12-24 at 16:58 +, Laeeth Isharc via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Programming languages are tools for solving problems, and
people face different problems and they also have different
capabilities and tastes, which means
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 16:57 +, Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> It's much better to have a monopoly of some niche or set of
> niches and to use energy from success to expand out from there,
> than to have a small market share of an enormous market. And
> niche in this case
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:53:16 UTC, Dan Partelly
wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:38:35 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
A fair amount of D's design is based on psychology.
I'd love to hear more about this sometime.
I never thought of this in the context of programming
On Sunday, 24 December 2017 at 20:58:51 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sun, 2017-12-24 at 17:13 +, Laeeth Isharc via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
New things grow at the fringes. See the work of Clayton
Christensen and his book the Innovator's Dilemma. A head-on
assault is ill-advised.
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:38:35 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
A fair amount of D's design is based on psychology.
I'd love to hear more about this sometime.
I never thought of this in the context of programming languages,
but behavior is strongly modulated genetically,
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:44:25 UTC, Laeeth Isharc
wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:29:02 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 02:13 -0800, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
Builtin unittests and Ddoc, for example. There's a big
psychological
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 16:29:02 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 02:13 -0800, Walter Bright via
Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
Builtin unittests and Ddoc, for example. There's a big
psychological
advantage
to having them built in rather than requiring an external
tool.
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 07:44:30 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 12/26/2017 4:18 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
All of which brings us full circle: when it comes to
programming
languages and software development, it is all about advocacy,
prejudice, and belief, there is very, very little
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 15:37:22 UTC, rjframe wrote:
And D has faith that programmers using @trusted know what
they're doing (for both writing and calling the function).
There is no avoiding trust in a useful language.
I'm just playing devil's advocate. Faith is something best
On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 14:54 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
> That's right. C++ is based on faith in the programmer using best
> practices. D is
> not based on faith, it can be automatically checked.
"Can be" is not the same as "is". Perhaps all D compilers should
enforce the
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 00:13 +, codephantom via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
> As such, as better and more realistic marketing campaign would
> promote D as being primarily a flexible language, with 'safe'
> features you can make use of, if you need them, some of which are
> on by default, and
On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 02:13 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[…]
>
> Builtin unittests and Ddoc, for example. There's a big psychological
> advantage
> to having them built in rather than requiring an external tool. The
> closeness to
> C syntax is no accident, for another.
>
>
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 15:37:22 UTC, rjframe wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 14:54:14 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/26/2017 1:03 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
The point is that the presence of one @safe: line in the
module can be mechanically checked, over one million devs
working on
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 14:54:14 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/26/2017 1:03 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> The point is that the presence of one @safe: line in the module can be
>> mechanically checked, over one million devs working on a codebase.
>>
>> The whole point of Walter argumentation
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:36:13 +, codephantom wrote:
> btw. I'd like to see D 3.x introduce a breaking change and make @safe
> the default, instead of @system. I think that would be huge boost for D
> going forward.
>
> How practical that is, I would have no idea.
>
> But as an 'end user' of
On 12/27/2017 1:38 AM, Dan Partelly wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 07:44:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
A fair amount of D's design is based on psychology.
Please elaborate. Which parts ? Where the results you got the projected ones, or
disappointments ?
Builtin unittests and Ddoc,
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 07:44:30 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
A fair amount of D's design is based on psychology.
Please elaborate. Which parts ? Where the results you got the
projected ones, or disappointments ?
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 07:49:33 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
AS is a hackish workaround for the failure of the language to
prevent such things.
AS is just a more modern valgrind, which has been around for
ages, and has failed to turn C/C++ into memory safe languages.
Well, I don't
On 12/26/2017 3:59 PM, codephantom wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 22:55:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I compiled the code snippet with clang++, a modern C++ compiler, with -Wall.
It did not detect the obvious error.
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html
That's not
On 12/26/2017 4:18 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
All of which brings us full circle: when it comes to programming
languages and software development, it is all about advocacy,
prejudice, and belief, there is very, very little science happening –
and most of the science that is happening is in the
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 15:53:50 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
Sadly I cannot see either of these happening. There is already
too much to pack in to an undergraduate CS (*) course even if
first programming and simple algorithms moves out into
pre-university education – as has now
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 16:50:54 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
Ok I'll bite. Can you recommend me some reasonable easy
literature. Something you can read in free time when you
travel, not study. Social interactions where always
interesting for me.
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 22:56:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/26/2017 3:54 AM, codephantom wrote:
I simply have to 'forget' to annotate with @safe
Not annotating with @safe is mechanically checkable as well.
If I were trying to create a marketing campaign for D, as being a
safe
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 22:55:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
I compiled the code snippet with clang++, a modern C++
compiler, with -Wall. It did not detect the obvious error.
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html
On 12/26/2017 3:54 AM, codephantom wrote:
I simply have to 'forget' to annotate with @safe
Not annotating with @safe is mechanically checkable as well.
On 12/26/2017 1:21 AM, codephantom wrote:
My C/C++ code can be 'mechanically' checked too.. and those checks are better
than they've even been, and getting better.
I compiled the code snippet with clang++, a modern C++ compiler, with -Wall. It
did not detect the obvious error.
On 12/26/2017 1:03 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
The point is that the presence of one @safe: line in the module can be
mechanically checked, over one million devs working on a codebase.
The whole point of Walter argumentation is 'mechanically'.
That's right. C++ is based on faith in the
On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 16:40 +, Dan Partelly via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
>
[…]
> Excuse me, since I don't really follow the "raise and fall " of
> new languages. Is really Rust rising and shining ? Tiobe (for all
> it's flows) put it on 0.530 index, just *below* ADA (great
> language, for SW
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 15:53:50 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
There also needs to be much greater education everywhere about
socio- technical systems. To be honest I'd prioritise this over
programming language design since programmers can always use
crap languages, but can they build
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 13:54:09 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
With C/C++ you simply can't do it anything similar, today (and,
IMHO, neither tomorrow): the rising of Rust is here to tell us
exactly that.
/Paolo
Excuse me, since I don't really follow the "raise and fall " of
new
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
