Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[superdan]

Sean Kelly Wrote:

> superdan wrote:
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> > 
> >> Sean Kelly wrote:
> >>> Walter Bright wrote:
> >>>> But, you said you didn't wish to mix functional and imperative 
> >>>> programming? I don't understand.
> >>> Not in the same language.  One reason being the impact it will have on 
> >>> managing projects in D.  C++, for example, supports a sufficiently 
> >>> diverse set of programming methodologies that large projects in it tend 
> >>> to be a mess.
> >> I agree that diverse paradigm support can lead to a mess.
> > 
> > that's like agreeing that ice cream consumption can lead to auto theft. what a heap of bullshit that is.
> > 
> > correlation is not causation. if we go by any reasonable train of thought, we'd see that c++ being multiparadigm is an advantage not an issue. people have written articles and books about how cool that is. they haven't written articles and books about what is sinking c++: the fucking syntax (bjarne is ok at a high level but he can't design syntax to save his life from a tribe of fucking horny and hungry gay cannibals); the shittiest exception model in the history of humankind (statically specified but dynamically-checked... worst of all worlds... what the fuck were they thinking about? shit); useless namespaces (what a useless pile of pigshit that whole feature is... and they can't even blame it to C... it was designed from scratch!); the template subsystem that is too much heat and smoke for the light; and a fucking million minor wounds, starting with "class" vs. "struct" shit and ending with copying at the drop of a hat.
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  D supports all the same paradigms as C++ and yet I 
> wouldn't say that it tends to produce unmaintainable code, so I agree 
> that a lot of it does really come down to syntax.  But it can still be 
> difficult to maintain a consistent API when part of the team wants to 
> use structs and free functions, another part wants an object hierarchy, 
> and yet another wants templates.  Tango has run into this a bit because 
> of the varying programming styles of the people involved as well as 
> feedback from users (some want objects, some don't, etc).  The result is 
> still far better and more maintainable than C++, but I think some of the 
> same issues exist.

agreed. lo and behold, there is agreement on the net. i must've died and made it to heaven.