new frontend written in D

Gor Gyolchanyan gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com
Wed Sep 28 08:23:04 PDT 2011


Using a multi-paradigm programming language is better, then using two
languages with two separate paradigms, because the mixture of more
then one paradigm in a single language is itself a new paradigm.
The interoperability of two paradigms, implemented in a language
enabled a whole new way of getting things done.
D supports much more programming paradigms, then any other language i
know. The combination of all those paradigms enabled D programmers to
do things, that is impossible to do in any other language.
Your approach to D2 as a slightly enhanced D1 kills that advantage of
D. Although i can understand why you chose to do that (and i agree
with your choice given the circumstances).
I just don't want to invest lots of time and effort in code, that does
not use language features, that are about to be implemented (although
the "about to be" can range from days to years).
The point is: the language can, but the compiler can't.
It turns out, that your approach uses DMD programming language, not D
programming language.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Trass3r <un at known.com> wrote:
>> But I don't have D2 because most of what makes it unique isn't
>> implemented or is buggy. And i still won't have it for a long long
>> time (I really want classes in CTFE, for example).
>
> I personally use D2 very conservatively, more like a D1 + a few missing
> things like struct ctors/dtors, compile-time reflection, const for
> parameters/methods and alias this (the latter not excessively though).
>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list