On 5/17/14, 10:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/14/2014 2:17 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/14/14, 6:33 AM, Yuriy wrote:
4. I consider D a killemall language, that may be potentially used on
tiny AVRs and PICs, where polymorphism might be welcome, but an extra
pointer for each class instance may become a blocker. I know, thats
fantasy now, but i think it's crucial to keep this concept of D.
Agreed at least with the "killing the mall" part :o).
While I agree with Andrei's agreements (!), the rationale for the
current approach is to make it relatively straightforward to translate
existing Java code into D. There was a fair amount of this in the early
days of D, I'm not sure how much of that lately.
Maybe I misunderstood - I thought the change preserves semantics. -- Andrei
