Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

3dOptics

The D Programming Language

Recommended Posts

Has anyone here ever program using the D programming language. I was just wondering what are your thoughts on the langauge. Is it easy to learn compared to C++ or other languages? If you have never heard of the D programming language check out the website below. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
""It seems to me that most of the "new" programming languages fall into one of two categories: Those from academia with radical new paradigms and those from large corporations with a focus on RAD and the web. Maybe its time for a new language born out of practical experience implementing compilers."" -- Michael


Pass, thanks. Languages are supposed to support and aid the programmer, not to make life easier for the compiler writer. This is exactly the reason why we still have the annoying .h/.cpp file splitting in C++.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is the same D that was talked about in the giant ''whats wrong with c''(paraphrased because I don''t remeber exact title) thread, then it sounded like a nice language. At first, I had the standard ''why do you need those features'' reaction, but as I started learning lisp it became clear how many of the features could be very usefull (such as closures and first class functions). Since so many people ignore the power of lisp(and other powerful languages like python), it could be good to bring such primitive and usefull constructs to the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Actually after looking at the comparisons between D, C, C++, C#, and Java, D doesn''t seem to just have been developed to make life easier on the compiler writer. It actually just looks like C++, with some of the C feature drown out. It also introduces some things that I''ve only seen in Pascal familiy languages like function nesting and array splicing. It also says it supports dynamic scoping which, i don''t see much use for, but I''m sure its gotta be useful for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its a great language, and one of the small amount of gc-languages wich give you much access to it. gc in d is plain and simple nothing hurting. you can disable it by writing for example a baseclass class ManualMemoryManaging, or simply using malloc/free yourself (they''re just c-functions, you can use''m)


it allows you to disable gc-processing, and gc-collect in a bunch later, etc, quite handy for time-critical parts.


i just never got glu32.lib working with the d-linker... don''t know why and somehow it made me move away from it.. waiting till 1.00 and some nice working ide..

but its definitely THE language where i dropped my eye on, and it never came really back..

"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
It looks too much like C++. Since it can''t compile C directly, the author should''ve designed it with a new, better syntax, from scratch. Like, use type inference, Python''s indentation blocks, a more clever for loop (I like iterators like in Python and Ruby), better metaprogramming abilities.. Now it''s just way too unoriginal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by Extrarius
If it was more like python or ruby, it wouldn''t be any more original... ... ...
Your reading or comprehension ability is lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My main problem with D is that it doesn''t get away from several of the ways people are "bitten" by C.

http://www.andromeda.com/people/ddyer/topten.html

Having been bitten by almost all of those listed, I was actively looking for something else. (I was bitten by the "Unidentified Order of Side Effects" between compiler versions recently...)

I mean, who the he!! uses octal nowadays? [grin]

RomSteady - I play games for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by Extrarius
If it was more like python or ruby, it wouldn''t be any more original... ... ...
Your reading or comprehension ability is lacking.


No, he was correct. Your comprehension of the word "original" is lacking.

And originality in programming languages isn''t necessarily a good thing. Usefulness is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by daerid
No, he was correct. Your comprehension of the word "original" is lacking.
No. His statement was correct. But as he was clearly referring to my post and said what he said, he missed the essense of my post, making my remark appropriate. I said "the author should''ve designed it with a new, better syntax, from scratch". An obvious invitation for originality. I also said suggestions such as "type inference" and "better metaprogramming abilities", neither of which exist in Python or Ruby. Type inference, indentation blocks etc. alone aren''t original, but their combination would definitely be. How do you comprehend the word "original"? Has any PL since Lisp been original?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites