On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 05:54:22 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 03:06:20 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 December 2013 at 00:36:32 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1rvltx/scala_1_would_not_program_again/#new
I think he might not have liked D either:
This leads to ridiculous decisions such as using ~ to glue
handlers together in the flexible DSL offered by spray
;-)
I don't think this author is used to working with
strongly-typed languages or languages with lower-level features:
"And while I’m on the topic, thanks for making me care about
the difference between long and int, again. It’s been far too
long since I wrote C."
The main issue is that many seem to think very simple languages
are the way to go, until they need to tackle complex problems and
end up modeling manuly what other languages offer for free.
Like code generation tools in Go to overcome templates, or crazy
macros in C to support OOP.
I think he might've had a lot of the same criticisms for D as
he did for Scala (save the build times. D's a real winner
there).
Most languages with module support should provide pretty good
compile times, C and C++ compilers are good example on how not to
do it.
Just look at the compiler improvements in Objective-C, now with
initial module support as of Maverick.
Sadly plain C and C++ compilers are what most young developers
know as AOT compilers, hence the spread of slow compilation
message.
--
Paulo
