Re: Tasks - communication
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 21, 2012
- 1563 views
I am sure Euphoria is able to do 1 + 1 = 2 OR
desirable_compiler = (need_for_Tasks_communication & using_D) - watcom_compiler
Not sure what you're getting at here.
considering that you yourself seconded the idea of "D Programming Language's approach" being very good
You are technically right in saying "I never made that statement."
However, you seconded DerekParnell's statment which reads - see 8. Re: Tasks - communication
"I like the D Programming Language's approach to this, namely that all data is assumed to be shared between tasks unless explicitly said otherwise." You seconded this statement. My understanding of the action of a seconder is that he does not repaet the words of a motion, but his seconding of the motion implies that he FULLY AGREES with the motion.
Here is what I meant to second:
all data is assumed to be shared between tasks unless explicitly said otherwise.
Seconded.
I misread what Derek wrote, however. If D's approach is that all data is assumed to be shared between tasks unless explicitly said otherwise, then I am against it.
I like the approach where all data is assumed to not be shared between tasks unless explicitly stated to be the case, and don't care at all for D's.
This being the case, I withdraw my rhetorical motion to second.
Considering that the subject of ditching Watcom has been bandied about for a year, and already some effort has been put, into MinGW as compiler;
considering that a whole thread has been started to vote for ditching Watcom;
One cannot escape the logical conclusion that "D Programming Language" would be the correct direction to take.
Sometimes it pays to apply computer logic to day-to-day decision making.
Without my agreement to D (which I have never given), the conclusion doesn't follow logically.
So the only unsolved questions about which we remain in disagreement
1. Voting for ditching Watcom is not ended;
2. You think "D Programming Language" is vastly different from C, and I don't.
I don't see why ditching Watcom is a necessary condition for adopting D per se - but I agree that the timing would be useful.
As for point 2, I might be willing to concede it. I actually don't know much at all about D. Derek seems to be our resident D expert, so I look forward to seeing his views on this.
Much as you would like to confuse between "D Programming Language's approach" and "D Programming Language", I am quite comfortable that "approach" has become tantamount to adopting the language IF the difference (as I believe) is not big, and IF YOU ARE ditching Watcom for another compiler.
I see a huge difference between doing something similarly to D and integrating D into the language.
Our if statements are like BASIC but we can't translate code to BASIC.
Once a decision has been made to ditch Watcom, YOU could start a thread to decide which of the several compilers are suitable, and at that time I hope you will remember the motion you seconded in this thread.
I have no intention of doing this. I'm happy enough with Mingw/GCC.
So as I see it, you are wrong in believing that
1. this thread is not pointing to my conclusion;
2. A separate thread is required.
You are an admin or mod here, I am simple programmer with only 30 years experience.
I think my comments above address my POV and show why I think point 1 is true.
As for point 2, technically a separate thread is not required. But I think it'd be better for clarity to make a separate thread and keep the posts about the merits and cons of D separate from this one. Still, since the volume of posts about D to this thread is fairly low, it's really your choice whether or not you want to do this.
