Andrei Alexandrescu:
I wasn't referring the clarity of explanation, just that I think this sort of righteous pontification - cheap to produce, yet implying vast insight - doesn't add any value to the exchange.
I agree that my answers were a little OT to the main discussion of this thread. But sometimes you want to discuss a bit more wide things, outside a matchbox. Next time in similar situations I will start a new thread then.
My two post didn't imply to contain significant insights, they mostly contain a single question.
Regarding the value of those two posts, they raises some questions, like: is D fit just for video games, or is it good to write highly reliable programs too? Are Ada programmers going to appreciate D?
The purposes of a language are important, because they must guide its design and progressive development. If D is very good mostly for games, then probably it's worth adding in Phobos things useful to write games, and the language designers need to listen more to what people like Carmak ask to language designers. On the other hand if in D future there is the creation of high integrity systems to replace some of the current uses of Ada (and C-high-integrity profiles), then it's worth considering how much useful some Ada features are, maybe for present and future improvements of D. As I have shown Ada has several advantages over D in that regard.
Bye, bearophile
