too much sugar not good for the health

[janderson]

Ary Manzana wrote:
> janderson escribió:
>> Falk-Florian Henrich wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:16:08 -0700 schrieb janderson:
>>>
>>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>> Personally I don't think D is anywhere near the threshold of having to
>>>> much.  Take a look at the most successful langugage (English), it keeps
>>>> getting bigger and bigger every day.  We just don't have enough syntax
>>>> to describe everything.
>>>
>>> Without discussing what "successful" is supposed to mean in the realm 
>>> of natural languages, I think the syntax of English is shrinking 
>>> rather than growing. Plus, today's lingua franca is a tiny subset of 
>>> English with a type discipline comparable to that of K&R C.
>>>
>>> Apart from that, I agree with you that D's syntax is a lot easier to 
>>> understand than that of C++.
>>>
>>> Falk
>>
>> By successful I mean most widely used, which is what we want D to become.
> 
> English is not succesful because of the language itself, but because of 
> other reasons (power, articles, books). Just like Java is succesful but 
> nowhere near because of the language (I guess VM, nice documentation 
> system, IDEs).
> 
> Maybe D should consider becoming succesful by other means besides of the 
> language itself? :-)
> 
> Ary

Neither Java or English would have any chance of being successful if it 
was difficult to learn.  Of course there are better languages out there 
however what I'm saying is that less then 100 terms in D is extremely 
tiny by comparison to the monster that is English.

A learning language is great, I don't think D should have to be written 
in infinite speak just so new people can get it (there are other 
languages for that).  It should be written so that we can produce less 
bug prone code at a faster rate.   When you come across a term/grammar 
that you haven't seen before, you should be able to learn it from the 
surrounding code 90% of the time.

-Joel