Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[superdan]

Sean Kelly Wrote:

> Yigal Chripun wrote:
> > superdan wrote:
> >>
> >> good language design is not about the kitchen sink as much as
> >> harmoniously accommodating multiple styles. nobody has shown that
> >> that can't be done.
> > 
> > Since a language is a compromise that's only true to an extent. Some
> > features are conflicting and you cannot design a language with all
> > features because of that. You cannot design a language both static and
> > dynamic ( At least to my knowledge ) since these two approaches are
> > conflicting designs. And both ways have cons and pros. Can you design a
> > language with the benefits of both, without the drawbacks of both?
> 
> Java is a statically typed, dynamic language.  So it can be done, though 
> I'm sure people have varying opinions about the benefits of this 
> approach :-)

yeah i was about to write something to that effect too. forth also comes to mind.

once d gets proper compile-time reflection, dynamic semantics will be a fart in the standard library. just look at std.variant, particularly how it implements the "length" shit. it screams "give me static reflection and i'll move the earth".