I think combining straight-forward uncomprimised support for both bare-metal access AND very high-level constructs is the thing, that no other language has dome before and D has a great shot at this. Personally, i think it needs more high-level construct support, like correctly implemented dynamic typing support. The C part of D is great: it deals with low-level stuff like a champ, but the Pythin part is not so good: high-level and abstract concepts are still a tricky thing to do.
We need to get high ;-) On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Manu <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 October 2011 13:31, Don <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 25.10.2011 11:40, bearophile wrote: >>> >>> Gor Gyolchanyan: >>> >>>> D doesn't have a religion. D is an atheistic language. >>> >>> I doubt this. There was even an attempt to write a D Zen. >> >> That was by you, though, wasn't it? <g> >> OTOH I agree that it's got an underlying philosophy. It was clearly >> motivated by a love/hate relationship with C++. >> "C++ done right" is still not too far wrong, although it seems that when >> you do C++ correctly, it looks like some other languages as well... > > Except every other example of C++ done right leads to a managed runtime :) > It's this "C++ done right" idea that sold me on D, except after spending > some time, I wonder if D is quite sure about what it is? > I bought in with the clear impression (and "C++ done right" certainly > suggests) that it was a modernised systems programming language. Surely this > is(/was?) the primary goal? > That's definitely what appeals to me... it's compiled to machine code, has > uninhibited hardware access, and that's the only niche that it cleanly fills > which isn't occupied by any other languages. > But I also see a lot of conversation about really high level features which > are more realistically suited in something like C#. If these things fit > neatly into D without compromise, then sure, why not. I love cool features! > :) > But is D making any compromise to that end? I haven't been following long > enough to know... > @Don: The only thing I really care about is that the compiler never chooses > double intrinsically.. that will prove which way the language leans to me ;)
