Why I like D

[Graham St Jack]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:44:34 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:gh9gqv$25lf$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Bill Baxter:
>>>And I also got increasingly annoyed by the silly runtime errors that
>>>any decent compiler would tell me about.<
>>
>> Generally I don't have such problems, but maybe my style of coding is
>> quite "careful" anyway.
>>
>>
> That's the reason I refuse to use dynamic languages and
> indentation-syntax languages whenever I have a choice. They're nothing
> but a giant step backwards, constantly replacing the most basic and
> standard compiler diagnostics with the world's most unnecessary runtime
> atrocities.
> 
> D is great because it proves to the world (or at least the few
> non-scripter programmers still out there) that good things like clean
> syntax, safety/reliability,
> functional-features-in-an-imperative-language, reflection, high
> productivity, etc are absolutely not things that in any way necessitate
> a dynamic language or a VM. I think there are *way* too many people out
> there who associate "static typing", "natively-compiled", and "general
> purpose" directly with "C++", and that's an absolute shame because C++
> is probably one of the worst examples of those things, especially in the
> presence of D.

I agree. D combines the best of both worlds, and I really can't do 
without lots of compile-time help from the compiler.

For me, D code looks good on the page, is easy to understand, and is FAR 
quicker to develop in and to maintain than the alternatives (I am forced 
to use C++ in my day job).