retard wrote: > Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:12:14 +0100, Lutger wrote: > >> retard wrote: >> >>> Sun, 07 Mar 2010 05:05:03 +0000, BCS wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Jane, >>>> >>>>> Is D a cult? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No, not yet. Walter hasn't figured out how to brain wash people over a >>>> newsgroup yet. However I think Andrei's working on it and Don should >>>> have a patch in time for TDPL going out ;b >>> >>> FWIW, I think there is a kernel of truth in the original claim. People >>> tend to agree evey time Walter proposes a new feature such as built-in >>> regexps - yes, they were removed shortly afterwards. But when >>> bearophile or some retard propose some features from functional >>> languages that are natural extensions to existing ones, everyone hates >>> them and tells us to go back to our ivory towers. >> >> That's weird, I don't see this at all. Maybe you focus too much on one >> or two negative comments? >> >> I also don't understand that you think D designers have a bias against >> functional programming, especially since the majority of the features >> that have been implemented the last years are heavily influenced by that >> style of programming. > > Uh, majority of the features? From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/ > features2.html: <snip> > > Let's see what features I had in mind: > > - Algrebraic data types > - Pattern matching (extension to enum/string/integer accepting switch) > - Higher kinded types > - Tuples (no auto-folding, real product types) > - Built-in variants (real sum types) > - Currying, lazy evaluation > - Fusion optimizations (e.g. list and stream fusion) > - Type classes > - basic control constructs are expressions, not statements (e.g. unify if- > then-else and : ? into a functional if-then-else) > - better syntax for lambdas > > > [1] if immutability is considered functional
Isn't this THE cornerstone of functional programming style??? > [2] if type inference is considered functional I don't see why. With 'majority of features' I meant the ones that have most impact or is spend the most effort on. Not just a count of checkboxes. A lot of those features you mention are either small or cleanup of the language. Remember that D is at heart not a functional language, so it's not surprising a lot of improvements are not of that nature. The const/immutable regime however and everything that connected to it (like referential transparency), has been the main focus of design. Furthermore, a lot of phobos is at least heavily inspired by functional programming ideas (map/reduce/curry/compose/variant, etc.). I'm not arguing with you about what feature set is good / bad / special or how it is implemented. Just saying that functional language ideas are being ignored is complete nonsense.
