A summary of D's design principles

[retard]

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:00:33 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> 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:
>> 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.

Being a higher level language isn't some positive optimum. I guess part 
of the reason you disagree is that you take everything personally if 
someone is critical towards D. My personal opinion is that D is in many 
cases a *better* language than C# and one of the reasons is that it's a 
lower level language. You can find one definition here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language

> You know, people who like D come to this newsgroup for suggestions,
> answers, and discussion... about D!
> 
> So you are surprised when people here post positive things about D?  You
> know, you are right.  We're all brainwashed, and I think you just saved
> us.

The logic often goes:

if (post.sender == "retard" && post.criticizes("D")) poster.sender.isWrong 
= true;

No matter what I say, I'm always wrong. Even quotes from encyclopedias or 
research papers are more wrong when I share them.