Difference between revisions of "Kurs/D (2013)"

From Programvareverkstedet
Jump to: navigation, search
(La inn info om kurset. Kan noen laste opp plakaten som vedlegg?)
(plakat)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
At first glance, D and C++ are very similar (both being natively compiled multiparadigm languages in the same syntax family), but once they are put to the ultimate test - practicality - C++ systematically fails on all fronts.<br>
 
At first glance, D and C++ are very similar (both being natively compiled multiparadigm languages in the same syntax family), but once they are put to the ultimate test - practicality - C++ systematically fails on all fronts.<br>
 
This talk aims to look at these two programming languages in the context of language <i>as a tool</i> - a tool to describe how a computer should solve a problem. And since language is a guiding force for our thought process, it is imperative that the language provides several and easy-to-understand mechanisms for expressing our thoughts. So why and how did C++ end up in its broken, unusable and creativity-inhibiting state, while D feels like a modern language that just "makes sense"? And what does it even mean for a programming language to "make sense"?
 
This talk aims to look at these two programming languages in the context of language <i>as a tool</i> - a tool to describe how a computer should solve a problem. And since language is a guiding force for our thought process, it is imperative that the language provides several and easy-to-understand mechanisms for expressing our thoughts. So why and how did C++ end up in its broken, unusable and creativity-inhibiting state, while D feels like a modern language that just "makes sense"? And what does it even mean for a programming language to "make sense"?
 +
 +
Poster: [[File:DtalkPoster04.PDF]]

Revision as of 08:28, 24 September 2013

D > C++

A depth-first search into the psychology and semantics of two programming languages

When: Torsdag 26th September 2013, 18:15
Where: KJL5
Speaker: Anders R. Petersen

Since talking about a single language quickly becomes a list of features and design patterns, it seemed reasonable that doing some sort of comparison to another language would be more interesting. So to keep things fair and balanced, that second language is one of the worst and most overhyped ones. C++.
At first glance, D and C++ are very similar (both being natively compiled multiparadigm languages in the same syntax family), but once they are put to the ultimate test - practicality - C++ systematically fails on all fronts.
This talk aims to look at these two programming languages in the context of language as a tool - a tool to describe how a computer should solve a problem. And since language is a guiding force for our thought process, it is imperative that the language provides several and easy-to-understand mechanisms for expressing our thoughts. So why and how did C++ end up in its broken, unusable and creativity-inhibiting state, while D feels like a modern language that just "makes sense"? And what does it even mean for a programming language to "make sense"?

Poster: File:DtalkPoster04.PDF