On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 17:36:59 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 15:59:30 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
Not sure what you mean by calling D multi-paradigm.
As opposed to Java that is 100% OOP (well 99%).
Which programming model is it that D supports that Java doesn't?
Functional? Logic? ...?
Ok, this is called a metaphor, a figure of speech.
Poor metaphor. :)
But, uh, you do get it, don't you?
That's right, I don't get it, and it isn't true. Walter's vision
obviously changed with D2, it was a shift in the core original
vision which focused on creating a significantly simpler language
than C++.
That's perfectly ok, a change in personal interests towards a
more ambitious vision is perfectly ok. But it has an impact on
the outcome, obviously.
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]
Poor irony too... It is so because:
1. system level programming language design has very little
academic value
2. it is very difficult to unseat C/C++ which is doing a fair job
of it
3. because portability is very very important and difficult
4. because high level languages often try to provide solutions to
specific areas
contributions to the core language. How could anyone keep track
of not to mention act on criticism that is scattered out all
over threads.
Oh, you don't have to. I am backing those that are arguing for
reasonable positions and will do so for as long as I think that
will move the project to a more interesting position. Please
don't try to make yourself look like a martyr.
Or is it an intricate problem that's not trivial to solve?
I very seldom run into memory related issues unless I do pointer
arithmetic, which @safe does not help with. If it is hard to
solve, the solution is easy: postpone it until you have something
on paper that can work...
