Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:31:16 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > But still, being able to consistently match C++ at what it's good at and > C# and Java at what they're good at in one language is big, and I really > don't think that we're there yet. I don't know how efficient we are in > comparison to C++, but I expect that there are a number of areas which > need improvement (things like inlining, the garbage collector, etc.) if > we want the average D program to match the average C++ program for > efficiency. And we definitely don't match Java and C# for ease of use > and maintainability at this point, but most of that is simply an issue > of libraries and tools, both of which are being worked on. So, we're > getting there, but I don't think that we're there yet. And certainly, > once we do get there, there's no reason to stay only "on par" with them. > We should always be looking to improve D and its libraries and tools.
Should D also look more academic than Haskell, F#, Scala, DDC, Clojure, BitC, Factor, and Ur/Web ?
