D

[Tony]

"Jarrett Billingsley" <jarrett.billingsley at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.408.1226733543.3087.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Tony <tonytech08 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Before I begin, know that the things I'm saying here are not meant as
> attacks.  It's just that your post has a rambling, semi-off-topic feel
> to it and so I'll do the same ;)

Choose your poison: mine is Merlot. (Good luck!). ( ;) ).

>
>> When I went to college, there was a BIG push to indoctrinate undergrads 
>> with
>> PASCAL. When I got into an industry (engineering, not IT), there was that
>> same push: the schools and companies were collaborating toward the PASCAL
>> goal. PASCAL "did well" (Umm... for Borland?). I knew a FORTRAN a bit and
>> did "minor" stuff with that (fixed ("refactored") existing code mostly, 
>> but
>> wrote complete programs also) and quickly found C (eureka!). Tthis was 
>> circa
>> IBM AT. The technology beyond my responsibility or capability but within 
>> the
>> environment was recommissioned PDP-11s running CP/M recommissioned for
>> realtime machine control (No, I never programmed those relics, though I
>> rebooted them from time to time).
>
> Sounds a lot like Java in today's school/industry world.

Really? I wouldn't know. That is sad. Java for elementary school maybe, but 
surely not college. Else it is "boiling in oil" (ask me, anyone, who is not 
familiar with the phrase).

>  Or maybe
> .net, depending on who's funding the university's CS department.

"Gag me with a spoon!". Nuff said.

>
>> For me, C came in the flavor of Microsoft C and I still have The Waite
>> Group's books next to me on my bookshelf, though I've not opened them in
>> over a decade. (My "stacks" are in the basement in banker's boxes, but I
>> know what I have down there). What WERE those "PASCAL pushers" thinking?! 
>> I
>> think back to the maintainer (yes, there was just one) of all that
>> mission-critical (potentially industry pivotal) FORTRAN code ... such sad
>> lives software developers have. Those many many lines of FORTRAN were 
>> pretty
>> much the work of one engineer (not all the the embedded theory of course,
>> though he knew it intimately also, but the code). Not a "programmer" or 
>> an
>> "IT person", an engineer (no, not a sofware engineer! Think, physics,
>> runge-kutta, flame fronts and the theory of chaos, (OK, maybe not that 
>> last
>> one, but he was old)). But I digress...
>
> You digress?  That's an understatement; your post looks more like an
> s-expression than like English ;)

I guess YOU (emphasis on YOU) had to be there. :P

>
>> The gist of my post, well not really a gist, but for lack of having to 
>> use
>> more human processing power than necessary (aka, my brain) right now 
>> (read,
>> 'gist' will do), I find it odd that a product having a lot of the same 
>> goals
>> as the one I envision, is not one that I choose to use and that I search 
>> for
>> another. (So much for the importance of "requirements specification"
>> apparently?).
>
> So.. what you're saying is that you agree with a lot of D's features,
> but you find it odd that you don't use it?

I wasn't suggesting any AGREEMENT (that is a legal term?). What I found odd, 
was that though the goals/requirements (some) are ones I want (some of 
them!), the end result is something I don't want to use. (Note that I am 
going to try to implement the language _I_ envision, be it just for fun or 
more... if nothing else, surely preprocessing C++ is in my future).

>
>> I did't have a question in starting this post, but having just gone 
>> through
>> the harkening back (above) and back to reality now, I feel deja vu: C++ 
>> is
>> now my FORTRAN, D is my PASCAL and my envisioned language is my C. I 
>> didn't
>> put a question mark in there because I think that I have figured out my
>> frustration with the current state of things. (Also, I'm so happy I'm not
>> still a FORTRAN programmer! :) )
>
> Wait.  Let me try to get this straight.

OK.

>
> C++ is your "language that you use to do practical things, even if
> it's not the best."

Yes.

> D is your "language that everyone is pushing for
> reasons you don't understand."

No, not really, but I did feel "pushed" to use PASCAL. I investigate things 
just enough to say yeh or nay and don't waste anymore time (I'm not "PC 
Magazine" presenting data for mass consumption). Do I feel D as being 
pushed? Answer: no. So my though was not clear: at that early programming 
indoctrination period, I trusted my instincts and learned C! (Amidst 
engineers who where writing FORTRAN). Call me a rebel if you want, but I am 
not. I just chose what "felt right". Short answer: I chose C becausse of 
it's syntax.


> And the language you want to make is
> your "language that is awesome for everything."

No, NOT at all. My goal is to build software, The language is a side-effect.

> Is that anywhere
> close?

So, no. Not even.

>
>> Is D today's PASCAL?
>
> If it had billions of dollars of corporate sponsorship and widespread
> acceptance at universities and workplaces, I might say yes.  But even
> if it were true, the entire philosophy behind the language is
> different.  Pascal (it's not all caps, btw)

"Good" trivia: Is the name of a once popular programming language 'PASCAL' 
or 'Pascal'? (I, OF COURSE, know that answer because I know that Louis 
Pascal was the one who put milk in a petri dish and discovered the cure to 
AIDS).

;)

> was designed originally as
> a learning language,

Sounds wrought with peril "designed as a learning <>". Hopefully, ideas of 
education have matured since those times.

> and as such, people became familiar with it in
> school, and started using it for real work.

Wait: Was it a real useful (reality) thing or not?! That would be luring 
those who can never be competent with the tool, potentially. So BAD idea.

>  Pascal is _meant_ to be
> restrictive, structured, and simple.

Useless? Apparently not: Borland successfully LURED a percentage of C++ 
programmers to use it's GUI framework that is written in Louie! (er, I mean 
PASCAL... Pascal?).

>  It came about in a time when
> structured programming was relatively new, and tried to teach people
> about it.  Borland got lucky.

I think it is still out there. Borland wasn't "lucky": how many C++ 
programmers do you know hacking Borland's PASCAL code?! My take on it: they 
did it wrong (on purpose) and marketed it succesfully (they made money).

>
> On the contrary, D is not meant to be a pedagogical language, or a
> purist language, or anything like that.  It's meant to be a practical
> language.

The obvious question is: where does the language domain end and the library 
domain begin?

>  It's meant to provide answers to a lot of the irritating
> aspects of C and C++

But longs to be more than "just" that. I understand. (Not that I'm 
"agreeing").

>  in a way that can still be implemented
> efficiently.  It doesn't really try much new (well, D2 does..).

Does it or doesn't it?! (It does). (Rhetorical, but feel free to respond).

>  It
> just takes a lot of existing, sensible ideas, and puts them together
> into an attractive whole.

Apparently, I "beg to differ" on that last part: "into an attractive whole".

>
> It's part of the reason why it's so great,

Bias noted.

> and at the same time, why
> it's so hard to sell.

Of course: no one in their right mind would buy QUALITY! :P

>  You can't point at a single thing that makes D
> awesome.

You said it, not me.

> You can't say "it's a great beginner's language!"

Unless I was a liar.

>  or "it's a
> completely safe language (like Java)!"

As if if adults would chose to go back to their mother's womb?  Duh.

> or "it's great for agile
> programming like Ruby!"

Ah, flavor of the month process proponent? "Pair" programming anyone? 
(Seesh.).

>  It's just a ton of little things.

Details don't make things "great" (your terminology).  D is not "great". If 
D is great, then I am good-looking! :P

>
> And of course, a language like this could only come from a sort of
> grassroots source.

No. You are propagandizing.

>  There is no corporate sponsorship.

Which corporations though? Consider I knew that an engineering industry 
company was "pushing" PASCAL. They just saw $$$.

> There is no
> governing body (well...).

Was this one of those "ton of things?", cuz it would be very lame at trying 
to sell D as a viable alternative (that's what D wants to be right: a viable 
alternative to C++?).

>  There is no gaggle of professors trying to
> make the language easier to pick up for new programmers (read:
> businessmen) who are trying their damndest to cash in on this
> "compooters thing".

Are you suggesting that professors do that? I have no knowledge of that.

>  And just as well, there is no money.

I CAN agree with that: there is no money. (Said uncontextually).

> No
> marketing, no bribes, nothing.  Which means no publicity.

Are you hinting that D is a CHARITY!?

>  D, or at
> least the idea and specification of it, has been around for .. almost
> ten years?

And I've been around for... nevermind that (!), but so what? I absolutely 
abhor Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. (Cuz they are playing that GAME?). 
(The lead vocals are like scratching fingernails on chalkboards, but do that 
to me over decades and "you win"? NOT!!! Sucked then, suck now.).

>  I think.  Maybe the spec was made in 1999 but not public
> until 2001.  In any case, it's been a long and difficult road to get
> the word out about the language.

"The Word".  (The new and improved Bible to surpass the King James or 
Jehova's version?).

>
> So that's why I don't think D is like Pascal at all.

Uhh... surely they won't be calling on you to market the product! (No 
offense, but you suck at marketing).

> It's not
> designed with a driving goal like Pascal.

Please state PASCAL's "driving goal" please.

>  And it's not backed by
> corporate or academic sponsorship like Pascal.

You are listing that as an asset then, right?

>
> (And to be honest, I'm still not sure what you think of Pascal.)

By now you do (?).

Tony