Steve Yegge's rant on The Next Big Language

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"BCS" <BCS at pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:eqq7nq$2tut$1 at digitalmars.com...

> Half?, more like one or two hard misses and a few more close calls.

Well let's see:

 1. Object-literal syntax for arrays and hashes

Arrays?  Yes.  Hashes?  no.

 2. Array slicing and other intelligent collection operators

Yes.

 3. Perl 5 compatible regular expression literals

No.  It did in a way at one point, but no one liked that.

 4. Destructuring bind (e.g. x, y = returnTwoValues())

No.

 5. Function literals and first-class, non-broken closures

Function literals, yes; non-broken closures, no.  How many posts have we had 
in the past month that had to do with people returning nested functions?  :S

 6. Standard OOP with classes, instances, interfaces, polymorphism, etc.

Yes.

 7. Visibility quantifiers (public/private/protected)

Yes.

 8. Iterators and generators

Not in the way I think he means.  There's opApply, but..

 9. List comprehensions

No.

10. Namespaces and packages

Package namespaces... yes.  ;)

11. Cross-platform GUI

No!

12. Operator overloading

Yes.

13. Keyword and rest parameters

No, but what does he mean by "rest"?  Vararg?  That's a yes, but..

14. First-class parser and AST support

If he means "code modifying other code" then no, certainly not first-class.

15. Static typing and duck typing

Yes.  (Unless some duck typing expert wants to correct me, I _think_ D has 
it)

16. Type expressions and statically checkable semantics

I won't lie, I don't know what this means.  But it doesn't sound like D has 
them since I've never heard of them.

17. Solid string and collection libraries

_Libraries_?  Noooo.

18. Strings and streams act like collections

Yes, if by "collection" you mean "you can iterate over them."


So counting the ones that are partially yes as 0.5, and the yeses as 1.0, I 
get 9.  9/18 = 0.5