Super-dee-duper D features

[Don Clugston]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> 8) I've never been able to create usable C++ templates. Notice that 
>> the DMD front end (in C++) doesn't use a single template. I know how 
>> they work (in intimate detail) but I still can't use them.
> 
> I have no problem with C++ templates, but the syntax is such that I 
> don't consider them appropriate for a lot of the uses to which they're 
> being put.  Also, in many ways, C++ templates feel like a hack.  The 
> need to sprinkle such code with "template" and "typename" qualifiers 
> just so the compiler knows what it's parsing sends up a huge red flag 
> that something is wrong.
> 
>> 9) But I see what C++ templates can do. So to me, the problem is to 
>> design templates in such a way that they are as simple to write as 
>> ordinary functions. *Then*, what templates can do can be accessible 
>> and maintainable. It's like cars - they used to be very difficult to 
>> drive, but now anyone can hop in, turn the key, and go.
> 
> Yup.  It may be that the D community is more technically adept than the 
> C++ community on average simply because of the type of people new 
> languages tend to attract, but I've seen a lot of interesting template 
> code around here.

I'm certain that it's just easier in D. I'm a bit amused by the ninja 
reference to myself, since I've never done anything very sophisticated 
with C++ templates. Andrei on the other hand...

My feeling is, that 'static if' instead of specialisation removes 60% of 
the mystery from template metaprogramming. Tuples remove another chunk.
I think that if basic uses of recursion could be replaced with iteration 
and compile-time variables (even if they were mutable only inside 
foreach), it would become readable to average joe.