On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 14:59:03 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 10:06:48 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote:
On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 05:31:27 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:


I think D's structs are a sufficient object system for such a focal point. With design by introspection, `alias`, templates, `alias this`, `static if`, CTFE, mixins, and a few new D features, classes would be unnecessary. Rust and Zig are pretty good examples of this.

D's implementation could even be improved to keep its runtime, yet still allow D to be used as I'm suggesting, without introducing any breakage for anyone. I made some significant progress in that direction when I was working on the compiler in the 2017~2018 timeframe, but my abilities ultimately fell short, and I couldn't see a way forward without support.


Killing classes will kill my interest and investment in D.

He's not saying "kill classes in D", he's saying an OOP system in D could be implemented from primitives and classes don't need to be a language feature, similar to CLOS in Common Lisp.

Reply via email to