A summary of D's design principles

[dsimcha]

== Quote from retard (re at tard.com.invalid)'s article
> >>> 2. a research project (Haskell)
> >>
> >> Haskell stopped being a research project many years ago, Haskell
> >> development now happens in companies (including Microsoft) as much as
> >> in universities and is about creating good examples of software
> >> engineering.  Research languages are things like X10, Chapel, OCaml, C
> >> ++.
> >
> > It still was designed as a research project. It even says so in the
> > Haskell 98 report:
> >
> > "The committee intended that Haskell would serve as a basis for future
> > research in language design, and hoped that extensions or variants of
> > the language would appear, incorporating experimental features." --
> > Haskell98
> Something has happened. There are few enterprises using Haskell and the
> GHC compiler is rather stable after years of development effort. There
> are also truckloads of bindings to various libraries and many libraries
> written in Haskell.
> I guess it's terribly hard to get rid of the 'ivory tower' stigma. What
> do you think is missing? They have:
>  * a good compiler (more mature than dmd)
>  * large set of libraries (more than d, seriously more than d2)
>  * an active community (larger and more talented than d programmers)
>  * research papers (does anyone have any idea if a single academic
> conference paper has ever been written about d?)
>  * website (better than digitalmars.com)
>  * a well defined language

Multiple paradigms are what's missing.  I refuse to consider any language that
adheres so rigidly to a single paradigm as anything more than an ivory tower
research project, no matter what.  In the real world no one paradigm suits every
problem, or even every small subproblem.  I emphasize the small subproblem part
because it implies that using multiple languages isn't they answer.