Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[maelp]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> I think part of the problem is that I simply don't agree with the mixed
> functional / imperative approach that appears to be the overarching
> direction of D.

Walter Bright replied:
> No other language has tried such an approach before, and so we have yet 
> to know unequivocably if it is right or not. But I'm very optimistic 
> about it.

Ever heard of Objective Caml? 
Not to be mean, but I guess it was there (and mixing functional, oop and imperative) first. Basically, I'd said functional programming in OCaml is *very* elegant and powerful, their use of functional instructions is a bit clumsy, and their oop is mostly unusable (mainly because they constantly "patch" their programming languages with new  features, basically, each time there's a PhD student trying to work on functionnal programming .. )

Try to have a look at their way of mixing all this, if you haven't done that yet.. ?