4 ms·

It's odd that F# is covered, but not C#, Objective-C, or especially C++. It was especially odd to read the description of D without C++ being named. The inclusi

It's odd that F# is covered, but not C#, Objective-C, or especially C++. It was especially odd to read the description of D without C++ being named. The inclusion of RAII in D is a dead giveaway of its inspiration.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
muricula 11y ago
The article mentioned C++ and Objective-C under the C language, and C# under F#. They may have done well to mention C++ and maybe Java's influence on D. They completely neglected E too.
tux 11y ago
C# = 2 (letter + symbol), Objective-C = 11 (10 letters + 1 symbol), C++ = 3 (1 letter + 2 symbols) so its not odd :-)
- 50CNT 11y ago
  It does say 1 letter languages not 1 character languages. But then if they were included, there'd be a comment on how C# is two letters, a discussion whether # should be counted as a letter or not, which really is one of these "look, we're arguing axioms now" discussions.
- zodiac 11y ago
  Then why was F# included?
  - tux 11y ago
    I think they wanted to post "F" but posted "F#" :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_(programming_language) Not to be confused with F Sharp (programming language). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Sharp_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Sharp_(programming_language)
aap_ 11y ago
The author also didn't get the history of C right. 1. it wasn't Dennis and Brian who wrote UNIX but Ken and Dennis. 2. B wasn't an internal language of AT&T but a language designed by Ken. 3. 16-bit words weren't immense at the time...yes, the PDP-11 had addressable bytes (unlike any other PDP) but I don't understand what this had to do with 16-bit words being "immense". 4. It was only Dennis not Dennis and Brian who developed B into C.
ben-schaaf 11y ago
To add to that point. The following quote is from an old version of dlang.org[1] > Can the power and capability of C++ be extracted, redesigned, and recast into a language that is simple, orthogonal, and practical? Can it all be put into a package that is easy for compiler writers to correctly implement, and which enables compilers to efficiently generate aggressively optimized code? Although this has slightly differed now, one of D's core objectives was to make a better C++ from the ground up. [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20120111102019/http://dlang.org/overview.html http://web.archive.org/web/20120111102019/http://dlang.org/o...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

muricula 11y ago

The article mentioned C++ and Objective-C under the C language, and C# under F#. They may have done well to mention C++ and maybe Java's influence on D. They completely neglected E too.

tux 11y ago

C# = 2 (letter + symbol), Objective-C = 11 (10 letters + 1 symbol), C++ = 3 (1 letter + 2 symbols) so its not odd :-)

50CNT 11y ago
It does say 1 letter languages not 1 character languages. But then if they were included, there'd be a comment on how C# is two letters, a discussion whether # should be counted as a letter or not, which really is one of these "look, we're arguing axioms now" discussions.
zodiac 11y ago
Then why was F# included?
- tux 11y ago
  I think they wanted to post "F" but posted "F#" :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_(programming_language) Not to be confused with F Sharp (programming language). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Sharp_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Sharp_(programming_language)

aap_ 11y ago

The author also didn't get the history of C right. 1. it wasn't Dennis and Brian who wrote UNIX but Ken and Dennis. 2. B wasn't an internal language of AT&T but a language designed by Ken. 3. 16-bit words weren't immense at the time...yes, the PDP-11 had addressable bytes (unlike any other PDP) but I don't understand what this had to do with 16-bit words being "immense". 4. It was only Dennis not Dennis and Brian who developed B into C.

ben-schaaf 11y ago

To add to that point. The following quote is from an old version of dlang.org[1] > Can the power and capability of C++ be extracted, redesigned, and recast into a language that is simple, orthogonal, and practical? Can it all be put into a package that is easy for compiler writers to correctly implement, and which enables compilers to efficiently generate aggressively optimized code? Although this has slightly differed now, one of D's core objectives was to make a better C++ from the ground up. [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20120111102019/http://dlang.org/overview.html http://web.archive.org/web/20120111102019/http://dlang.org/o...