Ok I understand you now. Maybe I'm biased because I like both languages, but I'm not convinced that this example illustrates well Go's simplicity compared to D.
For 99% of my *personal* daily use of both languages, very honestly, I've never felt that using types, functions, arrays, etc etc was simpler in Go compared to D. Even for more complex stuff like concurrency, I think that both languages still remain quite close, despite I think that Go's channel system is the best approach to the problem. On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 10:33:03 AM UTC+1, Egon wrote: > > The example contained 3 versions, C, D and Go. > > function pointer tables aren't that uncommon, maybe the []error part is > uncommon > > Examples from real world code: > > https://github.com/egonelbre/fedwiki/blob/master/action.go#L59 > > https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/master/crypto/sha3/sha3_test.go#L40 > > https://github.com/jteeuwen/go-bindata/blob/master/testdata/out/compress-memcopy.go#L205 > https://github.com/golang/net/blob/master/proxy/proxy.go#L57 > https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/cmd/vet/main.go#L150 > https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/net/http/server.go#L2391 > https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/cmd/compile/main.go#L23 > > And I've used it in Go, Java, C#, JavaScript, Delphi, C... > > The main reason you don't see these one-liners often in C, D et. al. is > because they are hard to read. > > For common C, C++ examples, see signal and interrupt vector tables. > > On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 12:05:43 UTC+3, ecstati...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Still waiting the Go version of this very useful D code... >> >> I'm not asking you to browse the web to find to find most complex >> declaration you can ever do in D, Go or C++ for instance. >> >> I've never used such ridiculous code in my Go/D/C++/Java/C# applications, >> and neither will you. >> >> I'm just asking you show me how *simple* code in Go will become much >> more complicated in D, as this is what you seem to think. >> >> And I mean something we will all use all day long (ex: declaring or using >> functions/types/arrays/slices/references/loops/etc etc), not the most >> complicated code you can come up with. >> >> THAT would be useful, and also a fair comparison between both languages. >> >> Because from what I see below, I may think you couldn't manage to find >> such an example >> >> But maybe I'm wrong, I don't know... >> >> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 9:33:48 AM UTC+1, Egon wrote: >>> >>> On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 10:51:43 UTC+3, ecstati...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> For all the common parts with Go (functions, methods, reference >>>> classes, strings, arrays, slices, ranges, foreach, etc), honestly I don't >>>> know why you say it's simpler in Go. >>>> >>>> Can you show me two examples of code side by side, and tell me "look >>>> how much simpler it's with Go's" ? >>>> >>>> Because from what I read, I'm sometimes wondering if you really know >>>> that the type declarations in D are MUCH simpler than in C/C++. >>>> >>> >>> error* (**callbacks)(int); >>> >>> Error[] function(int)[][string] callbacks; >>> >>> var callbacks map[string]func(int) []error >>> >>> >>>> For instance : >>>> >>>> int[] >>>> first_array_of_ints, >>>> second_array_of_ints; >>>> >>>> int[string] >>>> first_map_of_ints_indexed_by_a_string, >>>> second_map_of_ints_indexed_by_a_string; >>>> >>>> TYPE >>>> first_reference_to_an_object_of_this_type, >>>> second_reference_to_an_object_of_this_type; >>>> >>>> So, with all due respect, how many applications have you already >>>> programmed in D before telling me that Go's syntax is so simpler to use >>>> and >>>> to learn ? >>>> >>>> I agree there are much *less* possibilities in Go, but that doesn't >>>> mean it's automatically a simpler language to learn for all the common >>>> parts with D. Seriously. >>>> >>>> Because I had to learn both, and at least for a C++/Java/C# programmer >>>> like me, D transition was almost immediate, really a matter of hours to >>>> become comfortable with the language. Everything was alike, but much >>>> simpler and easier than in C++. >>>> >>>> Believe me or not, I've taught programming with D to my two teenagers >>>> with D. Really. >>>> >>>> I've chosen it because it was the only strongly-typed language close to >>>> Javascript that was really easy to learn, while allowing them to quickly >>>> switch to C++, Java or C# later if they wanted to. >>>> >>>> Go is much simpler than C++ too, I agree of course, but for having >>>> learned both Go then D, again from the point of view of a former >>>> C++/Java/C# programmer like me, I didn't feel that quickly at home with Go >>>> than with D, mainly because Go diverged much more from its predecessors >>>> than D from a syntactic point of view. >>>> >>>> So, again from a syntactic point of view, I don't think how you can >>>> affirm that it's much easier in Go than in D to declare and use types, >>>> references, functions, methods, slices, arrays, foreach, and all the >>>> common >>>> stuff between both languages. >>>> >>>> Honestly, no offense intended. >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 10:11:10 PM UTC+1, Doğan Kurt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But from my personal experience, D is *at least* as easy to learn than >>>>>> Go, if not easier. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I seriously doubt, no offense. Go is so small and so intuitive, one >>>>> can argue that there are people out there who knows most of the Go >>>>> unknowingly :) >>>>> >>>>> Just the fact that it doesn't break much with the familiar syntax of >>>>>> C#, Java, C++, etc helps a lot in making the transition. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Go's syntax is very familiar to C, i've never heard it was an issue. >>>>> The only think you must get used to is declarations and i LOVE the Go >>>>> way. >>>>> I remember the days i was struggling with C's declaration model, the >>>>> spiral >>>>> rule etc. sure we use typedefs but it rather feels like a hack. >>>>> I can write any declaration no matter how complex it is, with my eyes >>>>> closed in Go. It's so great. >>>>> >>>>> And genericity and polymorphism are invaluable tools when optimizing >>>>>> code reuse without reducing execution speed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't ever remember duplicating any code in C. I can't understand >>>>> how people are unable to write reusable code with C, seriously. Whenever >>>>> i >>>>> discuss this with a C++ programmer, they immediately share some generic >>>>> Max >>>>> function that works with int and double. I admit i use macros in that >>>>> case, but come on it's not even 1% of the serious programming you do in >>>>> C. >>>>> >>>>> If you are a competent C programmer (structured programming in >>>>> general), you know how to write reusable code. >>>>> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
