Re: Delph Superior to New D Language
- From: "Brett Watters" <blwatters@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 11:11:32 -0700
Dennis,
> Wouldn't C/C++ programmers have a more likely chance of having a
> background
> in C/C++? If that was you target audience? Since it appears that D is a
> C
> derivative?
There is nothing wrong with discussing other languages, seeing improvements
in
other languages, and comparing them to Delphi. Sometimes other languages do
something good and one should look at. All languages have advantages and
disadvantages. Comparing them often leads to good ideas for improvement in
your languages.
> I'll never understands how a Delphi user would actually drop Delphi only
> to
> choose an even more marginalized (cubed) tool as its replacement.
> Mind-boggling.
Ever wonder why folks program in JavaScript? Or write C DOS programs for
embedded systems. Or write assembler for device drivers. Or write Fortran
for big main frames. Or ASP pages. Or C++ open-source project? Or ...
Delphi is great. But it can't do everything. It also isn't accepted by
everyone.
It has advantages, and ... yes... it has disadvantages. It's a tool, like a
hammer,
screwdriver, or a saw.
Any programmer/company/project manager is going to pick the best tool
for the job. If many cases, hopefully, this will be Delphi. But in other
cases
it might be other tools.
> What products do you plan to produce with D? Which clients and employers
> do
> you hope to work producing D applications? How would I search for D on
> www.dice.com? Would I search for "D"? Help me to understand why you've
> posted you language "comparison" here? Do you really expect one to
> seriously evaluate Delphi against "D".
Why not? Modula/2 and Oberon never really made it to commerical success.
However, why not compare the language constructs to that of TP and Delphi?
Personally, I wish they took the Modula/2 system of concurrency and wrapped
it around threads under Win32.
I don't see armies of SmallTalk applications, nor B, standard Pascal, etc.
That doesn't mean one can't look at these languages and say, "Humm...
Interesting idea." or "Yes, more elegant than Delphi." or "Dephi's way
is easier but less powerful.", etc.
> I really don't mean to be harsh, but in this time of uncertainty where we
> are all pondering just what the alternatives are for Delphi, this one is
> "out there". um... IMO.
Since D isn't a commercial product, I don't see folks dropping Delphi
and moving towards it. IMO, the poster is just comparing Delphi to a
newly proposed language. The D language seems to point out
problems with the C++ language -- including it's reluctance to
re-invent itself due to backward compatibility and multiple vendors --
which give you some ideas of the limitations that C++ has.
I don't see anything wrong with professional software developers,
looking at what tools are available and comparing them to their
current tools.
Thanks,
Brett
.
- References:
- Delph Superior to New D Language
- From: Mike Vance
- Re: Delph Superior to New D Language
- From: Dennis Landi
- Re: Delph Superior to New D Language
- From: Mike Vance
- Re: Delph Superior to New D Language
- From: Dennis Landi
- Delph Superior to New D Language
- Prev by Date: Re: Already "too late" for x64 development
- Next by Date: Re: Dr. Bob - Forever Loyal to Delphi
- Previous by thread: Re: Delph Superior to New D Language
- Next by thread: Re: Delph Superior to New D Language
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
