d future or plans for d3

[Timon Gehr]

On 12/18/2011 11:51 AM, Ruslan Mullakhmetov wrote:
> On 2011-12-18 00:56:33 +0000, Timon Gehr said:
>
>> C++11 does not change the relation between D and C++ a lot. Why do you
>> think it does?
>
> Because it incorporates many features D declared to be unique to it

It does not, except for the most trivial stuff.

> over
> C++ like
> - thread local variables

D never declared that to be unique over C++. In D, thread local is the 
*default*. C++ does not have that, and it cannot have that.

> - explicit concurrency model

?

> - type deduction

C++11 cannot deduce function return value types. Except for lambdas. 
C++11 cannot pass template lambda functions as template parameters.

> - variadic templates

Yes, now you can pass a variable number of things to a C++ template. But 
what kind of things you can pass is still severely restricted.

> - generalized constant expressions

LOL! D has full CTFE. C++11's generalized constant expressions are a 
joke in comparison.

>
> Some comparison is made at http://d-programming-language.org/cpp0x.html
>
>> The language does not have to be changed to get that to work.
>
> The C language doesn't have to be changed to get OOP working. There are
> libraries written in plain C satisfying all requirements of OOP, e.g.
> libav. Nevertheless C++ was born.

This analogy is broken. D is expressive enough that there is no point in 
changing the language to support it. What part of MAS would require 
language support to be done nicely?

>
> So, what do i propose. To get it explicit in language and working out of
> the box, like in Erlang. the only benefit over Erlang i currently see
> that D is much more friendly for newcomers from C-like camp. The another
> is possibility for embedded programming. I was surprised that there are
> attempts to use MAS at embedded programming e.g. robotics where
> different controlers are autonomous and communicate with each others.
>
>>
>>> comparing to other modern languages
>>
>> IMO that is not a very important question. It is not a contest.
>
> I thin that this is exactly context. I try to explain. D has reputation
> of marginal language

D pushes the margin. :o)

> with no concrete niche.

It does not need a 'niche' and that is a good thing. D is general 
purpose. You can throw it at any task and expect good results. That is 
why MAS does not need explicit language support.