Go vs. D [was Re: Rust vs Dlang]

[1100110]

On 03/17/2013 03:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/17/2013 3:06 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>> On the other hand "creeping featurism" can be a bad thing. Isn't the
>> mantra "small language, large (properly indexed) library"?
>
> It can be a bad thing, no doubt about it. On the other hand:
>
> When I was in London for the 2010 ACCU (when the volcano stranded me
> there), I took a chance to tour the Belfast cruiser sitting in the
> Thames. One interesting aspect of it was the ship's machine shop.
>
> It was full of carefully selected machine tools. It was pretty clear to
> me that an expert machinist could quickly and accurately make or repair
> about anything that broke on that ship.
>
> Sure, you can make do with fewer, more general purpose machines. But
> it'll take you considerably longer, and the result won't be as good. For
> example, I've used electric drills for years. I was never able to get it
> to drill a hole perfectly perpendicular. I finally got a drill press,
> and problem solved. Not only is it far more accurate, it's much faster
> when you've got a lot of holes to drill.
>
> I prefer to view D as a fully equipped machine shop with the right tools
> for the right job. Yes, it will take longer to master it than a simpler
> language. But we're professionals, we program all day. The investment of
> time to master it is trivial next to the career productivity improvement.
>
> And as for the library, yes that is crucial. A large part of D's feature
> set is there to enable more powerful libraries, such as the language
> support for ranges, and the language support for library-defined garbage
> collection.

Soo...  You're saying D is like Vim?  =P