The D Programming Language
in [C++]
|
From: Walter Bright on 23 Nov 2006 20:02 David Abrahams wrote: > FORTH. > > And no, I'm not kidding. Why aren't you programming in FORTH, then? Emulating features from a niche language is not a good idea, especially if those features are all-powerful, unless one thoroughly understands why the language failed to become mainstream. After all, D isn't named FIFTH. <g> -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) on 23 Nov 2006 20:03 Maciej Sobczak wrote: > AJ wrote: > >>> No language manages to completely do away with undefined >>> behavior. Although C++ could surely do better in this regard; >>> there's a lot of unnecessary undefined behavior. >> >> I have doubts about that first assertion. Surely there are academic >> languages out there that do. Moreover, I wasn't aware that fully-managed >> (e.g. no unsafe/PInvoke), CLS-compliant C# contained any UB. Does it? I >> also think pure ECMAScript is safe in that regard. > > If the language is absolutely free of any UB then you basically cannot > implement its own library in it - with I/O being the crucial part. (Still late in the thread.) Probably any I/O, memory allocation, system access etc. etc. facility is ultimately provided by the system in some procedural form. The issue of implementing the lowest-level primitives within the language is not essential for the well being of the language. > Of course, it is possible to define a language without UB and give it a > library that is "reach enough", but such languages are not what we would > call "system-programming languages" (try to find one). I think Modula-3 was system-level PL and also safe. Andrei -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Gabriel Dos Reis on 23 Nov 2006 23:03 Walter Bright <walter(a)digitalmars-nospamm.com> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | BTW, Prof. Kahan is the person behind the design of the 8087 floating | > | point CPU chip, as well as the IEEE 754 floating point specification. | > | > As if I did not know. | | That's great. Now we can move on to a technical discussion of where you | feel he's gone wrong in advocating a separate imaginary type. I admire your effectiveness at eliding my original query. # So, there must be something more to your arguments than you have # said. It would very useful if you could articulate them for some of us # that are ignorant in numerics, instead of invoking proof by authority. I'm very much interested in your technical arguments, logically and clearly articulated, which do not just consist of posting a link to a document that blend a large amont of anti-Sun rants and other material, or which do not just consist of proof by authority. Let's recall that, my query comes after your claim: # > But even if so, how does an Imaginary type help with that, when x+i*y # > can always be represented as Complex(x,y) and vice versa? # # This explains it better than I can: # http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/JAVAhurt.pdf I have provided material supporting that C++ complex library does nothing wrong with respect to what the document claims. In particular C++'s library has operators overloaded for mixed operands, so no wasteful arithmetic. It is just as in: [...] James Gosling has proposed. Kahans imaginary class allows real and complex to mix without forcing coercions of real to complex. Thus his classes avoid a little wasteful arithmetic ( with zero imaginary parts ) that compilers can have trouble optimizing away. Other than that, with overloaded infix arithmetic operators, you can't tell the difference between Kahans syntax and Goslings. | > But, the 8087 floating point implementation does not meet unanimous | > consensus -- and this not just from ignorant programmers. | | Objections to it I've seen are based on speed, not suitability to | accurate numerical work. If you know of other serious objections, why | not post them? I'm very happy do so in a another message, just to separate that topic from my original query because I feel like you refuse to address my original technical question in favor of discussing authority. -- Gabriel Dos Reis gdr(a)integrable-solutions.net [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Gabriel Dos Reis on 23 Nov 2006 23:04 Walter Bright <walter(a)digitalmars-nospamm.com> writes: [...] | > Did you ever write a Forth vocabulary? I have and among other things | > implemented Logo on a Forth system. | | I've never done anything with Forth. I know next to nothing about it. | | If Forth is so powerful, why has it remained an obscure niche language? (1) Obscurity is the eye of beholder. (2) I see your question is predicated on a proposition, e.g. "If Forth is so powerful." I'm not sure "so powerful" guarantees 100% mainstream adoption of a given programming language. -- Gabriel Dos Reis gdr(a)integrable-solutions.net [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Nemanja Trifunovic on 24 Nov 2006 04:13
Walter Bright wrote: > 1) Extend std::string to support UTF-8. Ehm: http://utfcpp.sourceforge.net/ -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] |