Jarrett Billingsley wrote: > http://web.archive.org/web/20010830214723/www.digitalmars.com/d/ > > It's the D spec from August 2001. It's fun to see what D _used_ to > be, and the, cough, lovable monster it's become today ;)
Some interesting differences: * real used to be extended. * alias used to be typealias. * Good old bit :D * Phobos used to be called "D Class Library" and only had 11 classes in it: Math, File, String, Regexp, GC, Thread, Process, Date, Zip, System and Random. * There were TWO character types: ascii and unicode; unicode changed size by platform (16-bits under Windows, 32-bit under linux). And people think char[], wchar[], dchar[] is messy! * version didn't take an identifier; it actually evaluated an expression. One example given was: version(system.os == OS.WindowsNT) * No foreach! * Classes didn't have protection attributes on super classes. Considering this has never done anything AFAIK, I wonder why it was ever added... * There were no packages, meaning all your modules were shoved into a single namespace! * No templates! >From the FAQ: When can I get a D compiler? I'm hard at work on one. I hope in a couple months. I had not anticipated being slashdotted. A time when no D compilers existed? Such a dark, barbaric time... What about templates? Templates were not in the original plans for D. C++ was wildly successful even before templates were added, and Java is wildly successful without templates. The feedback I've been getting, however, is that D will not be successful without some form of templates, so in they go. Whoever it was that convinced Walter to add templates: THANK YOU! Why emphasize implementation ease? Isn't ease of use for the user of the language more important? Yes, it is... HAHAHAHA *snort* Sorry, but you can't seriously claim D is still easy to implement whilst .stringof still exists in its current form. :P
