On Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 04:31:43 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
He mentions D, a bit dismissively.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7724&cpage=1#comment-1912717
The reason he can dismiss D, so easily, is because of his
starting premise that C is flawed. As soon as you begin with that
premise, you justify searching for C's replacement, which makes
it difficult to envsion something like D.
That's why we got C++, instead of D. Because the starting point
for C++, was the idea that C was flawed.
C is not flawed. It doesn't need a new language to replace it.
If that was the starting point for Go and Rust, then it is ill
conceived.
One should also not make the same error, by starting with the
premise that we need a simpler language to replace the complexity
of the C++ language.
If that was the starting point for Go and Rust, then it is ill
conceived.
What we need, is a language that provides you with the
flexibility to model your solution to a problem, *as you see fit*.
If that were my starting point, then it's unlikely I'd end up
designing Go or Rust. Only something like D can result from that
starting point.
I'd like Eric to go write a new article, with that being the
starting point.
Because then, it's unlikely he would get away with being so
dismissive of D.
