Design Patterns == weakness in language

Walter Bright newshound at digitalmars.com
Wed Sep 13 17:14:46 PDT 2006


Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:15:03 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Brad Anderson wrote:
>>> This might be a bit OT, but I often wonder if D is going to succeed C/C++/Java
>>> long-term given that it's not abstracting away a majority of known design
>>> patterns.  Or, maybe that's just D 2.0 and we need to be patient.  <g>
>>>
>>> http://newbabe.pobox.com/~mjd/blog/2006/09/11/#design-patterns
>> I've found that when I translate straightforward C++ code into 
>> straightforward D code, the size of the (source) code drops 30%. That 
>> means that D *is* abstracting away commonly used C++ patterns.
> 
> (Design Patterns) != (C++ patterns)
> 
> Yes, we all agree that D is a lot more efficient than C++ when it comes to
> source code density. However, that has very little, if anything, to do with
> "design patterns" as a programming paradigm.

I think it has a lot to do with it, but I think it's pointless to argue 
the issue. The issue to me (and hopefully to most programmers) is one of 
productivity. Are you getting your programs developed faster with D or not?

I know I'm getting a personal big productivity boost from D - and time 
is money.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list