On Tuesday, 14 November 2017 at 11:55:17 UTC, codephantom wrote:
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.
Well, in another thread he talked about the Tango split, so not
sure where he is coming from.
That's why we got C++, instead of D. Because the starting point
for C++, was the idea that C was flawed.
No, the starting point for C++ was that Simula is better for a
specific kind of modelling than C.
C is not flawed. It doesn't need a new language to replace it.
It is flawed... ESR got that right, not sure how anyone can
disagree. The only thing C has going for it is that CPU designs
have been adapted to C for decades. But that is changing. C no
longer models the hardware in a reasonable manner.
If that was the starting point for Go and Rust, then it is ill
conceived.
It wasn't really. The startingpoint for Go was just as much a
language used to implement Plan 9. Don't know about Rust, but it
looks like a ML spinoff.
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.
Why not? Much of the evolved complexity of C++ can be removed by
streamlining.
If that was the starting point for Go and Rust, then it is ill
conceived.
It was the starting point for D...
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.
Or C++, or ML, or BETA, or Scala, or etc etc...
Because then, it's unlikely he would get away with being so
dismissive of D.
If he is dismissive of C++ and Rust then he most likely will
remain dismissive od D as well?
