On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 02:33:19 UTC, ketmar wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:05:06 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/23/2015 5:37 AM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
<[email protected]>" wrote:
Yes, it is because of modular artithmetics which is a D
design flaw.
Out of the innumerable posts you write, I can't recall one
which didn't
assert that whatever D does is wrong.
that's 'cause he don't talking about features done right. ;-)
Oh, but I have!! I've pointed out that the vision for D1 was
right, but D2 ruined it by adding cruft without fixing the
flaws... ;-)
Walter got A LOT right in his original _vision_ as represented on
his original website for D1:
- Taking current practice for C++ and building a better syntax
for the most common patterns.
- Clearly stating that a programming language should encourage
you to write code that is aesthetically pleasing on the screen
and make that easy.
- Clearly stating that language semantics should be so simple
that you didn't need a long specification for it.
- Clearly stating that performance was imperative as a goal for
the language and that D would not aim to replace higher level
languages like C#.
I can applaud to this, anyone who has exposed themselves to the
annoyances of C++ can applaud to this! And D1 was a step in the
right direction. A good start.
The vision was lost on the way to D2, and most unfortunately the
market for programming languages is a Winner Takes It All market.
D2 is only a marginal improvement on C++, and worse in some
areas. That can't win.
I find it worrying that the evangelical D users are perceiving D
as a compiled scripting language and claim it is similar to
Python... D semantics are not at all like Python. That can't win.
I find it worrying that the people who say they want to use D as
a system programming language are into games, yet the projected
vision for the D leadership now is to make it a web programming
language that should ship with vibe.d. That can't win.
I find it worrying that so many people attracted to D system
level programming are into games, yet game development needs are
ignored. That can't win.
D is lucky that Rust is annoying, Go is marginal, and Nim is
unknown, so people are stuck with ugly look C++ code.
There is a need to move towards something beautiful, and that's
not in Andrei's vision, but in the original D1 vision + the
improvements proposed by Bearophile, Timon Gehr and others. Or
swing 100% to Andrei's direction and improve significantly on
meta programming by adding pattern matching and partial
evaluation, so that you have something significantly better than
C++.
…but move...
Remember: It's a winner takes it all game.
