A summary of D's design principles

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:38:43 -0400, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:

> Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:27 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:36:32 -0400, retard <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:22:09 -0400, bearophile wrote:
>>>> Jesse Phillips:
>>>>
>>>>> This is exactly how it should be marketed. It has the productivity of
>>>>> Python, other dynamic languages, with the performance and power of a
>>>>> natively compiled language.
>>>>
>>>> Most programmers are able to see that's very false, today.
>>>>
>>>> The main and maybe only advantage of D over C# is that it's
>>>> multi-platform. But today the Web is very important, and D can't be
>>>> used in browers.
>>>
>>> I don't find it surprising that people here agree, when one is bashing
>>> other languages. However, please consider that C# is *higher* level
>>> language than D and that means it by definition has better portability
>>> to multiple platforms. You already have a C# virtual machine for all
>>> major operating systems. C# even runs on a browser
>>> (silverlight/moonlight).
>>
>> How is C# higher level than D?
>
> FWIW, I was talking about the language, not its implementation.

So was I.  Hence my dismissing the library argument because it's not the  
language's fault.

> Does C#
> have access to inline assembler? Agreed, it doesn't provide many new high
> level features compared to D, but it doesn't have all the interfaces with
> raw metal. That makes it higher level language in my book. It's less
> dependent on the hardware platform.

You mean, C# doesn't provide access to the lower level constructs?  IMO D  
is at the same level even if it does provide inline assembler.  The simple  
fact is, you don't *have* to use low level features of D, you can stick to  
the C#-level constructs.  Hell, you can even write full useful programs in  
D without ever touching a pointer or inline assembler.

-Steve