Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[Walter Bright]

maelp wrote:
> 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?

Yes, but I know nothing about it.

> 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.. ?
>