4 ms·

I prefered the sequel K for D programmers.

giancarlostoro 6y ago
Funny though anything that competes with D better be damn good. The more I study and write small projects with D the more I love about D!
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  Same! The more I think about what we do in Software the more I value readability. I think one of the reasons I love D is that it clearly treats readability as a design requirement. I just wish there were more jobs out there using Dlang...
- lmm 6y ago
  What does D offer over OCaml or any other ML-family language? I never really got what its selling point was at the time - "compile-time reflection" sounds like the worst of both worlds (but I guess it means something akin to typeclass derivation?), and the idea that it could kinda-sorta work without GC was never really explained clearly enough.
  - voldacar 6y ago
    D shouldn't really be compared to ML. D is really just a reimagined C++, free of a lot of C++'s absurdity and incoherence
    - lmm 6y ago
      But I'm not looking for "a reimagined C++". I'm looking for "a programming language". What is the question for which "a reimagined C++" is the answer? (Maybe a language for use in environments where GC is not acceptable, but D fails to make a convincing case that it is such a language).
      - giancarlostoro 6y ago
        D lets you do away with the GC and is working on a borrow checker type system like in Rust.
        lmm 6y ago
        > D lets you do away with the GC But you can't use the standard library if so, right? Or rather you can use some parts of the standard library but not others, and some third-party libraries but not others? It was never clearly explained what does and doesn't require GC. > and is working on a borrow checker type system like in Rust. But it only started work on that after Rust became established. So why wouldn't I just use Rust, which has a borrow checker I can use today?
- moonchild 6y ago
  It wears off. I used d for quite a while, and I still think it's much better than c++. However, it's ultimately just more of the same: an incoherent, tangled mess. Slightly more coherent, slightly less tangled, sure. It's possible to iterate on garbage, but you still wouldn't want to serve it at a restaurant. Worse, it has politics. Prominent d users regularly talk about forking the language/compiler; not because of any specific language pain points, but because of pathological problems with the way the language is developed. The main compiled/native language to watch imo is cone[1], though most of its ideas are not yet implemented. Zig is also decent, and closer to production-ready. 1. http://cone.jondgoodwin.com/ http://cone.jondgoodwin.com/
  - giancarlostoro 6y ago
    Neat, have you looked at V yet? https://vlang.io/ https://vlang.io/
    - moonchild 6y ago
      V is a joke. I don't understand why anyone takes it seriously.
      - giancarlostoro 6y ago
        It's current capabilities are probably why. I don't see it as ready yet, but its interesting how much it does in such a short span of time.
a-saleh 6y ago
Damn it, I thought this wasn't a joke! I did enjoy fumbling around in ike [1], a javascript-based K playground :-) [1] http://johnearnest.github.io/ok/ike/ike.html http://johnearnest.github.io/ok/ike/ike.html
mhd 6y ago
I still feel bamboozled by the mockbuster "J++ for C++ Programmers".
- Ididntdothis 6y ago
  J++ was actually a real thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if that book had been written.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  If these books have APL adjustable rank ⍤ used on the `for` function, we can make many more combinations: "J for⍤0 0⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J for C programmers. "J for⍤1 0⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J++ for C programmers. "J for⍤0 1⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J for C++ programmers. "J for⍤1 2⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J++ for C# programmers. "J for⍤2 2⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J# for C# programmers. etc. Then with `commute` ⍨ we can swap the argument order as well: "J for⍨⍤1 0⊢ C Programmers" ≢ C++ for J programmers. etc. (Assuming C has a single implicit plus, C++ is a 1D array of plusses, C# has a 2D matrix of plusses)

Funny though anything that competes with D better be damn good. The more I study and write small projects with D the more I love about D!

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
Same! The more I think about what we do in Software the more I value readability. I think one of the reasons I love D is that it clearly treats readability as a design requirement. I just wish there were more jobs out there using Dlang...
lmm 6y ago
What does D offer over OCaml or any other ML-family language? I never really got what its selling point was at the time - "compile-time reflection" sounds like the worst of both worlds (but I guess it means something akin to typeclass derivation?), and the idea that it could kinda-sorta work without GC was never really explained clearly enough.
- voldacar 6y ago
  D shouldn't really be compared to ML. D is really just a reimagined C++, free of a lot of C++'s absurdity and incoherence
  - lmm 6y ago
    But I'm not looking for "a reimagined C++". I'm looking for "a programming language". What is the question for which "a reimagined C++" is the answer? (Maybe a language for use in environments where GC is not acceptable, but D fails to make a convincing case that it is such a language).
    - giancarlostoro 6y ago
      D lets you do away with the GC and is working on a borrow checker type system like in Rust.
      - lmm 6y ago
        > D lets you do away with the GC But you can't use the standard library if so, right? Or rather you can use some parts of the standard library but not others, and some third-party libraries but not others? It was never clearly explained what does and doesn't require GC. > and is working on a borrow checker type system like in Rust. But it only started work on that after Rust became established. So why wouldn't I just use Rust, which has a borrow checker I can use today?
moonchild 6y ago
It wears off. I used d for quite a while, and I still think it's much better than c++. However, it's ultimately just more of the same: an incoherent, tangled mess. Slightly more coherent, slightly less tangled, sure. It's possible to iterate on garbage, but you still wouldn't want to serve it at a restaurant. Worse, it has politics. Prominent d users regularly talk about forking the language/compiler; not because of any specific language pain points, but because of pathological problems with the way the language is developed. The main compiled/native language to watch imo is cone[1], though most of its ideas are not yet implemented. Zig is also decent, and closer to production-ready. 1. http://cone.jondgoodwin.com/ http://cone.jondgoodwin.com/
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  Neat, have you looked at V yet? https://vlang.io/ https://vlang.io/
  - moonchild 6y ago
    V is a joke. I don't understand why anyone takes it seriously.
    - giancarlostoro 6y ago
      It's current capabilities are probably why. I don't see it as ready yet, but its interesting how much it does in such a short span of time.

a-saleh 6y ago

Damn it, I thought this wasn't a joke! I did enjoy fumbling around in ike [1], a javascript-based K playground :-) [1] http://johnearnest.github.io/ok/ike/ike.html http://johnearnest.github.io/ok/ike/ike.html

mhd 6y ago

I still feel bamboozled by the mockbuster "J++ for C++ Programmers".

Ididntdothis 6y ago
J++ was actually a real thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if that book had been written.
jodrellblank 6y ago
If these books have APL adjustable rank ⍤ used on the `for` function, we can make many more combinations: "J for⍤0 0⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J for C programmers. "J for⍤1 0⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J++ for C programmers. "J for⍤0 1⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J for C++ programmers. "J for⍤1 2⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J++ for C# programmers. "J for⍤2 2⊢ C Programmers" ≢ J# for C# programmers. etc. Then with `commute` ⍨ we can swap the argument order as well: "J for⍨⍤1 0⊢ C Programmers" ≢ C++ for J programmers. etc. (Assuming C has a single implicit plus, C++ is a 1D array of plusses, C# has a 2D matrix of plusses)