On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:44:34 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "bearophile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Bill Baxter: >>>And I also got increasingly annoyed by the silly runtime errors that >>>any decent compiler would tell me about.< >> >> Generally I don't have such problems, but maybe my style of coding is >> quite "careful" anyway. >> >> > That's the reason I refuse to use dynamic languages and > indentation-syntax languages whenever I have a choice. They're nothing > but a giant step backwards, constantly replacing the most basic and > standard compiler diagnostics with the world's most unnecessary runtime > atrocities. > > D is great because it proves to the world (or at least the few > non-scripter programmers still out there) that good things like clean > syntax, safety/reliability, > functional-features-in-an-imperative-language, reflection, high > productivity, etc are absolutely not things that in any way necessitate > a dynamic language or a VM. I think there are *way* too many people out > there who associate "static typing", "natively-compiled", and "general > purpose" directly with "C++", and that's an absolute shame because C++ > is probably one of the worst examples of those things, especially in the > presence of D.
I agree. D combines the best of both worlds, and I really can't do without lots of compile-time help from the compiler. For me, D code looks good on the page, is easy to understand, and is FAR quicker to develop in and to maintain than the alternatives (I am forced to use C++ in my day job).
