[OT] What should be in a programming language?

[Jason House]

Denis Koroskin Wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:42:31 +0400, Jason House  
> <jason.james.house at gmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]  
> > I would have a type type, usable for both compile time and run time  
> > reflection.
> >
> 
> I'd separate that into built-in "type" and library "Type" types.


I don't really understand how you're envisioning use of types. Can you elaborate a bit more? I'd normally assume the library Type class would be the same as used by the compiler. That would seem to keep things clean/complete, but there's no reason someone couldn't make an enhanced wrapper which would also be usable at compile time


> > I've probably forgotten a number of basic things, but that should be  
> > enough for now.
> 
> I believe templates are better be written in imperative style. That's why  
> a built-in "type" type is needed.

Absolutely! Do you have any inspirational examples?

 
> Great list. 

Thanks

> I believe with upcoming finalization of D2 some of us are  
> already looking into future and D3 so keep thinking. While you get your  
> inspiration from D, D could also adopt some of your suggestions.

Maybe. Somehow I think most of my list is too extreme. D has even moved away from some of the stuff in my list. (for example, in used to be scope const)