Mac OSX installer for dmd

[Leandro Lucarella]

dsimcha, el  3 de agosto a las 02:34 me escribiste:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> > Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > > For me the problem with D is dependency control. You don't know what
> > > symbol come from which module. Yes, I know you can do explicit
> > > dependencies in D with static and selective imports, the same you can do
> > > the inverse in other languages with the import module.*-like syntax, but
> > > I think D got the default wrong, I prefer explicit by default.
> > It's a reasonable point of view, but the motivating thing for me here is making
> > it easy for people to write quick&dirty programs.
> 
> I truly appreciate D's stance that both quick and dirty code and more heavily
> engineered code need to be supported.  My biggest gripe about languages like Java
> is that they force so much "proper style" on me that I can't just "make it work"
> before I "make it right".
> 
> I love how, using D, I can go from a quick and dirty prototype to a "real"
> program/library without having to switch languages and completely rewrite every
> function.  In bioinformatics research, we do TONS of prototyping/small scripts and
> only a small fraction of these prototypes are fleshed out into serious programs.
> I suspect there are other fields like this, where you just want a quick prototype
> up front, but it may or may not be converted into a proper program depending on
> how the prototype works. Being able to do both in the same language is just an
> outstanding feature.
> 
> Second, being able to write quick/dirty programs lowers the barrier to entry for
> trying out the language.  My first few D programs, back when D was a mere
> curiosity for me, were things like programs that counted the amount of times each
> DNA nucleotide occurred in a sequence.  Of course this is trivial, but if the
> language treated me like a naughty child instead of a consenting adult, I would
> likely not have stuck with it.
> 
> Third, often only part of a program needs to be well-engineered (the core
> algorithms that will likely be around awhile) and the rest is just some quick and
> dirty glue to feed data to the core algorithms, and will likely change in
> relatively short order.  The well-factored core algorithms plus quick and dirty
> glue style is very often how I program in practice.

I agree completely, I hate Java and every programming language where
a readable hello world takes more than 3 SLOC. But I insist I'm talking
about defaults. If D would accept an import module.* syntax, you could
still do quick&dirty without much hassle, but make the dirtyness
explicit.

The argument about having technical problems to implement this model
seems like a good reason (but I guess it should be doable though, at
some point you have to know all the symbols that are present in a source
file, and where they came from).

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<original> [Penis Uptime: 2days 13hrs 59mins 35secs]
<Yapa> viagra? :)
<original> yea, 20 pills