On 22/08/10 21:01, retard wrote:
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 ?
No, of course not, well, uhhm, at least going by the blurp at
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html
where it says
"It [D] is not governed by a corporate agenda or any overarching theory
of programming. The needs and contributions of the D programming
community form the direction it goes."
Where is it written that the design of a PL should be governed by
an overarching theory of programming (and/or a corporate agenda)?
Axioms and logic and all that formal stuff are just so anti-democratic.
Ad hoc PL design by newsgroup is so much more consensual and politically
correct in this modern age of equity and diversity.
:-)
