Python's features, which requires D

[Dennis Ritchie via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Saturday, 23 May 2015 at 20:44:37 UTC, cym13 wrote:
>> Not sure what kind of meat you mean, but I really don't see 
>> much meat in ranges. Of course, this is 10 times better and 
>> easier to use than STL iterators C++. For me the most 
>> important feature D are mixins, which I, unfortunately, rarely 
>> use. I'm waiting for new features from D: for new designs, not 
>> simply the expansion of Phobos and fix bugs in DMD :) Should I 
>> wait for these new features? It seems to me that everyone is 
>> not enough to simply correct C++ — they all want a language in 
>> which many different sugar. In my opinion, sugar you can try 
>> to shake out of Lisp, if possible :)
>>
>
> I think you are mistaken. The hard part about growing a
> programming language isn't adding features, it's finding the 
> right
> core of features that are stable yet generic enough to answer
> everything in their own way.
>
> This is why C still is such a popular language, it hardly 
> evolvevd
> since the begginning. It is also why Java in its time or Go know
> are popular among companies: they are boring, just boring. But 
> they
> are stable. C++ wanted to address every problem, and look at it
> know.
>
> We have to develop a style, not more features. Python has its 
> own
> style but every new feature (and they are rare) is very 
> diligently
> examined. Most are refused. There is the python way. If python 
> isn't
> the right tool for the job, then the best thing to do is finding
> another tool, not scotch an extension to the first one.
>
> I like python. I like D. I like other languages. Of course 
> sometimes
> I'd like to have, say, UFCS in python or list comprehension in 
> D.
> But D isn't the best language to do python, python is. And as 
> there
> is a python way, there is a D way.
>
> This is not to say that we should dismiss any good concept of 
> other
> languages, but those concepts fit in a philosophy, in an 
> ecosystem.

You may find it nonsense, but Paul Graham says that each language 
has its own power. He believes that Lisp is the most powerful 
language, and programmers who write in other languages, he said 
Blub programmers. Learn more about "The Blub Paradox" can be read 
in the article Graham:
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

What about increasing the number of features and stability, I 
agree. You may need more stability.

Based on the theory of Graham, I should point out that the level 
of power python clearly lower than D :)