Bartosz about Chapel

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Timon Gehr" <timon.gehr at gmx.ch> wrote in message 
news:j9mtth$d26$1 at digitalmars.com...
> On 11/12/2011 09:05 PM, Somedude wrote:
>> Le 12/11/2011 17:27, Timon Gehr a écrit :
>>>> I tend to believe D is conceptually more complex than C++. Which means
>>>> it allows for more expressivity.
>>>
>>> What makes you think it is conceptually more complex? Most features that
>>> make D more expressive than C++ are conceptually very simple. And what
>>> is conceptually simple in D is usually also implemented in a simple way
>>> (as opposed to C++).
>>>
>>>
>> I think D's type system is more advanced and more detailed than C++ or
>> as any C derived language. This takes a while to grok. Of course, I
>> guess at the beginning one can program in D with only a subset of the
>> language.
>
> Ok, I see. Probably we are missing a nice tutorial about the type 
> qualifiers (const/immutable/shared/inout) ?
>
> Or is there another type system feature that takes a while to grok?
>

I'd imagine D's type system might sometimes seem more complex than it is 
simply because highly complex types involving fancy templates are used so 
much more. And, of course, they're used more because D makes it so much 
easier to use them.

And then, there's also complexities that are for the better. For example, 
C++ AFAIK doesn't have IFTI. IFTI *is* an additional set of 
rules/complexities *in the language*, but they're complexities that make the 
language easier to use. SImilar thing with the implicit conversion rules for 
primitive types: The rules for that are somewhat complicated, but they 
usually make using the language easier and safer.