DMD 0.149 release - What is missing from D?

[Anders F Björklund]

Don Clugston wrote:

>> I have a library here that I can compare implementations for, and out 
>> of C++ and Objective-C and now D - the D version is the neatest one by 
>> far!
> 
> You're preaching to the converted <g>.

What I meant was that even without a good std library, it's still ahead.
(The C++ version was using Carbon, and the Objective-C was using Cocoa)

I guess that's a side-effect of the "don't do in a standard library what 
can be done in the compiler", which seems to be a part of D philosophy ?

> Right now we have a world-beating language, that's totally embarrassed 
> about the state of its libraries (the IDE is a minor issue in 
> comparison). It's a genuine, serious problem. It might not be too hard 
> to fix, but that doesn't stop it from being a blocker right now.

I wrapped my own "showstopper" libraries, so those weren't really it...
I've found that people invent other reasons, to not have to look at D ?

The good part is that "C" libraries can be used by all three languages.
(the bad of course being that I then need to code the whole thing in C)

--anders