On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
because Go is not a general purpose language.
Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is a successor
to C as envisioned by Rob Pike, Russ Cox, and others (I am not sure how
much input Brian Kernighan
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +, rsw0x via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is a
successor to C as envisioned by Rob Pike, Russ Cox, and others
(I am not sure how much
On Friday, 21 August 2015 at 23:51:16 UTC, cym13 wrote:
On Friday, 21 August 2015 at 22:39:29 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
Not at a pc, so can't test right now, but does Appender work
at compile time? If not, does ~= still blow up CTFE memory
usage like it used to? Any other best practice /
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +, rsw0x via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
because Go is not a general purpose language.
Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is a
successor to C as envisioned by Rob Pike,
On 8/22/2015 10:47 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
because Go is not a general purpose language.
Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 07:30:23 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:48:48 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 10:47 +, via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
Yes, Go has sacrificed some compute performance in favour of
latency and convenience. They have also
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 10:47:55 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
Out of curiosity, how much funding is required to develop the
more straightforward kind of GCs ?
A classical GC like D has is very straightforward. It is been
used since the 60s, I even have a paper from 1974 or so
describing
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 07:02:40 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
I think Go 2 is a long way off, and even then generics will not
be part of the plan.
I agree that Go from Google will stay close to the ideals of the
creators. I think it would be difficult get beyond that for
social reasons.
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 10:47 +, via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Yes, Go has sacrificed some compute performance in favour of
latency and convenience. They have also released GC improvement
plans for 1.6:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kBx98ulj5V5M9Zdeamy7v6ofZXX3yPziA
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 01:22 +, Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d
-learn wrote:
[…]
Keep in mind java may be using green threads as opposed to kernel
threads.
The equivalent in D is a Fiber.
I believe Java itself hasn't used green threads in an awful long time:
Threads are mapped to
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:48:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
But one that Google are entirely happy to fully fund.
Yes, they have made Go fully supported on Google Cloud now, so I
think it is safe to say that Google management is backing Go
fully.
I'm kinda hoping for Go++...
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 20:01 +, tony288 via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
[…]
Now what I would like to know, how would I make this code more
efficient? Which is basically the aim I'm trying to achieve.
Any pointers would be really help full. Should I use
concurrency/parallelism etc..?
I
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 06:54 +, via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:48:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
But one that Google are entirely happy to fully fund.
Yes, they have made Go fully supported on Google Cloud now, so I
think it is safe to say that Google
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:48:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 10:47 +, via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
Yes, Go has sacrificed some compute performance in favour of
latency and convenience. They have also released GC
improvement plans for 1.6:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 10:47:55 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
[...]
I didn't mean to start again the whole GC and Go vs D thing.
Just that one ought to know the lay of the land as it develops.
Out of curiosity, how much
I think interfaces are very powerful and I heavily use them. The
only problem I have with them is that serializing/deserializing
them to XML or JSON doesn't seem to work. So far I got to try
Orange and painlessjson. Using Orange all I got was a lot of
compiler errors. Painlessjson did compile
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 19:14:16 UTC, nims wrote:
I think interfaces are very powerful and I heavily use them.
The only problem I have with them is that
serializing/deserializing them to XML or JSON doesn't seem to
work. So far I got to try Orange and painlessjson. Using Orange
all I
On 8/23/2015 7:14 AM, nims wrote:
I think interfaces are very powerful and I heavily use them. The only
problem I have with them is that serializing/deserializing them to XML
or JSON doesn't seem to work. So far I got to try Orange and
painlessjson. Using Orange all I got was a lot of compiler
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 16:49:26 UTC, DarthCthulhu wrote:
I'm having difficulty understanding how templates operate as
function parameters.
Say I have this:
struct ArrayTest {
void arrayTest(T) (T arrayT) {
writeln(arrayT);
}
}
unittest {
ArrayTest
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 17:08:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
void arrayTest(T, int passing) (T arrayT) { ... }
I get 'cannot deduce function from argument types' errors.
Specifically stating the type of the function doesn't seem to
help:
test.arrayTest(float [])(farray, 1);
I'm having difficulty understanding how templates operate as
function parameters.
Say I have this:
struct ArrayTest {
void arrayTest(T) (T arrayT) {
writeln(arrayT);
}
}
unittest {
ArrayTest test;
float farray[] = [
0.5f, 0.5f,
21 matches
Mail list logo
