Adam Ruppe wrote: > On 5/31/10, retard <r...@tard.com.invalid> wrote: >> For example the lambda syntax is terribly verbose in D compared to Scala >> or Haskell. > > Eh, one man's "terse" is another man's "unreadable".
True, though I think that Haskell's lambda syntax is quite nice (I haven't used Scala, so I can't comment there). However, I don't think that it would really fit in D. Haskell uses type-inference for everything, so lambdas don't include types. And since D is statically typed and only uses type- inference with templates, it wouldn't work very well to use the same sort of syntax in D. What D has is still rather good though, just not as terse. I don't see you getting much terser in D without making it problematic. So, the level of terseness which is appropriate is also very context- dependent, not just programmer-dependent. - Jonathan M Davis
