A gentle critque..

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Ben Cooley" <Ben_member at pathlink.com> wrote in message 
news:e4a3rm$25v9$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> Again.. Java and C# have their own advatages which tend to outweigh some 
> of the
> disadvantages of not having direct and immediate access to system level
> libraries written in C and C++.  Yet D is intended as a system level 
> programming
> languages.  The fact that it can't understand the entire body of system 
> level
> code in C and C plus plus, and it doesn't play nice with C plus plus is a
> serious.. probably fatal.. drawback.

Most truly system-level code is written in C, with which D can already 
interface on a binary level.  So why bother making D compile C, when there 
are tons of C compilers out there already, and if D can already link with C 
code?

As for C++, name _one other language besides C++_ that can natively link 
with C++.  IT CANNOT BE DONE, for the reasons already explained: there is no 
unified C++ ABI, and as such, C++ libraries generated by different C++ 
compilers are often binary-incompatible.  Making D binary compatible with 
C++ would mean nothing; it'd be binary compatible with one small segment of 
C++ code and nothing else.

> It can be.. but I think it's wishful thinking to compare D to C# or java 
> for a
> number of reasons.

If you mean they can't be compared because C# and Java had large, 
multinational companies backing their development, then yes, I agree that 
they can't be compared with D in terms of the "star power" that they have 
been given by their deep-pocketed creators.  However, in terms of 
simplicity, orthogonality, and expressiveness, D just seems like a 
system-level version of C# and Java.