Why Ruby?

[loser]

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
> news:iedqos$787$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > On 12/16/10 1:30 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >>
> >> The point here isn't that we want "a" and "b" to be replaced with "_"
> >> the point is that we want to get rid of the string and have a shorter
> >> and less verbose syntax for delegate literals.
> >
> > I understand. Using strings is witnessing the fact that we couldn't find a 
> > shorter syntax that didn't have problems. That being said, it's very 
> > possible there are some great ones, we just couldn't find them.
> >
> 
> Any problem with the other Scala/C#-style one?:
> 
> (x, y) =>  x * y
> 
> // Lowered to:
> 
> (x, y) { return x * y; }

The main reason might be that DMD used to suck at inlining these. Now that the compilers are better, it would be embarrasing to admit that C# and Scala made a better choice. As you can see, the language authors prefer to stay quiet to bury this discussion as efficiently as possible. It might even be the case that Walter is too incompetent to implement this rewrite without introducing tons of new bugs like he usually does. </loser-talk>