On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 15:59:30 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
It wasn't pure OOP, not sure what you mean by that either.
Not sure what you mean by calling D multi-paradigm.
As opposed to Java that is 100% OOP (well 99%).
I still don't get the comparison. I don't buy a new computer
until I am running out of RAM. Speed is no longer a big issue
for me, not even with C++ compilation speed.
Ok, this is called a metaphor, a figure of speech. I'll translate
it for you:
To wait until a language is perfect, before you deploy it is like
constantly waiting for the next generation of computers to come
out, before you buy one. I.e. it will never happen, because there
will always a next generation that is even better. But, uh, you
do get it, don't you?
So they don't exist, because the perfect language is also a
system level language.
Who has been talking about perfect? Geez, system programming
languages are lightyears away from perfect. And they are way
way behind high level ones.
And why is that so? Is it because of inherent difficulties to
marry low-level functionality with high-level concepts? No, it's
because language designers are stooooopid [<= irony]
It's tiresome and doesn't get us anywhere.
Then don't argue the point without having a real argument
against it. If your motivation is entirely defensive then you
don't really achieve anything. If your motivation is
informational, then it can achieve something. E.g. you could
enlighten me.
I don't agree with you that knowledge doesn't get people
anywhere. I think it does, it just takes a lot of time,
depending on where they come from. I don't know much about
Andrei, but Walter does move over time.
Except your knowledge is not focused and thus doesn't help
anyone, random rants on whatever topic comes up instead of a
focused plan of action with proofs of concept and possibly
contributions to the core language. How could anyone keep track
of not to mention act on criticism that is scattered out all over
threads.
E.g. low-level control vs. safety (cf. the discussion about
casting away immutable)
I don't think that is a very good argument. All it tells me is
that D's approach to safety isn't working and that you need to
do this by static analysis over a much simpler core language.
Or is it an intricate problem that's not trivial to solve?
But this is going nowhere ...
