For whom is

[Andrej Mitrovic]

On 12/11/10, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> We stand to lose the ability to express designs clearly and in good
> detail whichever of the above we eliminate. What do we take away?
>
>
> Andrei
>

Nothing. Keep D2 as it is. We have to use D2 for a few years and build
some cool apps, before we can figure out if some language feature is
truly unnecessary. And that's how we'll know what D3 will look like.

I too have found D2's number of keywords a bit too much to digest at
first. But then I've realized these keywords are really there to
enforce a pattern that was used by convention over the years, e.g. in
C++. The keywords are good because: 1) The compiler can help enforce
what was only used as a convention before (which is error-prone), and
2) When you read someone else's (or your own) source code you will
know for sure what the code actually does, and what it cannot do.

I was just reading the GoF book again (I've read it once using C++
years ago) and found it awesome how D directly implements many of the
techniques that are enforced by convention in C++. Here was my comment
from ycombinator: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994171