[Sussex] RE: The 'D' programming language

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On 20 February 2003 at 11:34 Geoff Teale wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> There is a tendency for users to demand more and more features of a
> language.  This only ends up in horrible syntax kludges.  If languages
were
> not all tailored for a particular task then there would be only one
language
> - we don't learn new syntax just for fun!  

Wasn't that what APL was designed to be - and who uses that now?
Answers on a postcard please to:
I don't give a damn
4 feet South of Western Pier
Brighton

:-)

> There are rules for these things:
> 
> All art aspires to the state of music

What!!!!  Even sculpture - which, when approached from a tactile PoV,
can be appreciated by the deaf.  I'd like an explanation of what you 
mean - the reference when over my head.
 
> All programs expand to the point where they can send and recieve e-mail
(no
> matter what their original function) - the canonical example is the
> progression of TECO through to the environment that is EMACS.

Agreed - feature creep is still going strong.

> All third generation programming languages are pressured by 
> users towards the state of "C".

Agreed - although I don't know why.

<snip>
 
> There is a tendancy amongst management experts to assume that the 
> answer to any problem is to add more management to the mix.  Equally
> there is a tendancy amongst business people to assume that any technical 
> aspect of an implementation is unimportant as long as their immediate 
> goals are met.

This is of course the only right answer.  Managers are paid more that
developers and therefore add more to the project.  [Anyone believing this
please step forward.  I have shares in a Sadam's palace to sell - no
risk of it being destroyed :-)]

> Unfortunately these people rarely reconcile this with the fact that they
> will have a new requirement in a months time and will be shocked if you
> can't implement it immediately (because they forced you to produce _bad_
> software).  That's all just an aspect of short-termism in business, a
common
> problem.  Whether they are right or wrong (ultimately businesses _must_
make
> money) is not the point here, the net result is making the programmers
life
> more difficult through ignorance.

But we have a response to this: eXtream Programming.  I may not solve the
underlying problem but at least is has a cool name.

> > I have a very clean (OO) definition of "Business Logic":...
> 
> Yes, I accept that the phrase has a valid and sensible use, just that the
> people who have used it with me (who frankly would not understand what it
> meant anyway) were universally a source of stress to me :)

There is a word for that: Life! [Note: Life is a four letter word :-)]
 
> > Any language can be used in a clean way.  
> 
> Except Pearl!  < don't hit me, I'm only joking :-) >

No on this one I agree with you  [Flame suit on]

<snip>
> Java was a revolution, D is an evolution.

In this thread (on language syntax for what of a better term) the 
Java syntax is not a revolution - it far to close to C/C++ for that.
By removing the clutter the syntax is just another evolution.

How Java was execute was the revolution.  It showed that interpretation
was viable - which was not the think 20 years before when everyone 
jumped on the compiler bandwagon.
 
> > Of course C++ is a compromise system; ...
>
> Yes. I just think that D, like java does better by forcing people to work
in
> a cleaner manner - one problem with C and C++ is that peoples approach to
> things varies so greatly and the choice of library can effectively change
> the character of the code totally.  While Gtk-- and Qt3 are fabulous they
> require you to learn a whole new syntax (and in the case of Qt add an
extra
> stage to compile process and make tools like `make` useless).

Agreed.
  
> I persist with C++ programming at home because it is useful in
> my career (and my best bet at getting away from the dreaded VB),
> but really I'd rather be hacking hardware in Assembly language.

You are, of course, entitled to your preferences.  Personally my views
are that there are very, very few places where hand code assembler is
better than good C code compiled by a good compiler.

Years ago I was writing an article on how to write C to compile into
efficient code.  The angle being that C was quicker to write (a correct)
program in, and much easier to debug.  I had a good set of steps making
the 68000 machine code (this was back in my Amiga days) better and better.
My last example of C produced 68K so good that I could relate it back to
the C code - I just couldn't find the second increment in the Bubble Sort!
I should have published - it rather proved my point.

> D will suffer from the fact that other than being the "Right Thing"
> it doesn't offer anything major that C++ doesn't and won't compile
> old C or C++ code.  Developers will not switch to it unless they are
> just interested in coding generally and have a clean slate to start
> with.  Ruby and Python suffer this in comparison to Perl.  

Agreed.
 
> > Java's pick up was amazing.  At one time Sun measured the "life" of Java

> > in days - and then you couldn't walk in to Waterstones with out seeing 
> > at least one shelf full of Java books - and Java was only 800 days old -

> > that's around 3 years old!!!!!!
> 
> But that, as I say is because Java offered something that had never
existed
> before.  Microsoft's .NET suffers as a Java copy-cat as Python suffers as
a
> Perl-Follower, even the might of Microsoft is having trouble shipping
those
> boxes.

I think .NET has another draw back - it is limited to only one platform!

Steve