interpreted vs. compiled

[Brad Anderson]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> What does it mean for D?  Well maybe For D maybe this could mean a third
> flavor of aggregate --
> - struct: low-level value aggregate
> - class: static polymorphic aggregate
> - dclass: dynamic polymorphic aggregate (new!)
> 
> The difference would be that dclass would do everything dynamically ('d'
> for "dynamic").  All member lookups via strings.  All property accesses
> via special methods that can be overridden.  In that way you could start
> coding with dclass, and as bottlenecks appear, you just have to
> transition the performance critical things from 'dclass' to 'class'.
> Another alternative is to allow some syntax for dynamic members in a
> class.  But that seems messier to me somehow.  For instance, from my
> experience using Qt I was constantly asking myself "should this be a
> slot? should that be a QProperty?"  Why worry?  Just make 'em all
> slots/properties.  If you need some non-dynamic things in your dclass,
> make an inner class that's not dynamic.

Hmm.  It's rather a shame this didn't get any replies.  I like the idea.  I
wonder if MiniD helps out at all...

BA