On 05/24/2012 07:21 PM, Araq wrote:
On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 22:56:52 UTC, Kevin Cox wrote:
On May 24, 2012 6:53 PM, "Froglegs" <lug...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Like the design, syntax is way better than D
But half of what makes a language are the compilers/debuggers/tool
I like many ideas of the language but there are some show-stoppers for
me.
For example the fact that you have to define things in order. I shouldn't
have to deal with that in this day and age.
Nimrod is full of constructs that have inlining semantics and as such
declaration order matters quite a bit. The D compiler has/had bugs with
this feature for a reason. ;-)
OK, now I'm curious. Why?
I'm considering to weaken the requirement but I don't mind this feature:
Having the order reflect the call graph has its advantages too. Many
consider the resulting order *backwards*, but at least there is *an* order.
Wouldn't it be good enough to define the order arbitrarily when building
your symbol table? What kind of information is this allowing the
programmer to convey to the compiler?
I'm already skeptical because I have no intuition for how this allows me
to better optimize my code ;)
Btw, I've looked at Nimrod a while ago (year+) and found it very
elegant. I love good metaprogramming. I think my only complaints were
the bus-factor and the apparent lack of array slices (the kind that
doesn't cause copying). Still, very promising.
