Does D have too many features?

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 29-04-2012 08:40, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Am 28.04.2012 22:59, schrieb q66:
>> On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 20:35:40 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 20:09:50 UTC, q66 wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 20:05:30 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are minimalistic languages that don't add too much complexity,
>>>> instead it results in code being kept simple.
>>>
>>> I appreciate minimalistic languages. I love the simplicity of Scheme
>>> and the design of Lua. Lua and Python are extensible language, but
>>> truth be told, they cannot handle large scale programming. In fact, I
>>> don't know of any minimalistic language that can scale from hundreds
>>> of thousands to millions of lines of code. When you reach these sizes,
>>> their simple design becomes a drawback. You start missing lots of
>>> features. When you reach large scale programming, you want really
>>> powerful tools.
>>>
>>> That's basically what the Java designers discovered after experience.
>>> The original language was simple and easy, but that simplicity
>>> translated into way too much boilerplate code. So they kept adding
>>> features from version to version, generics, then annotations, a means
>>> to create new keywords. And now they would like to add delegates.
>>> These are all needed in large programs.
>>>
>>>> D needs to do something it does really well and concentrate on that.
>>>> Otherwise the language will remain being rather vague and doing "a
>>>> bit of everything, but nothing truly well".
>>>>
>>>
>>> It does a lot of things well already. Our point of comparison should
>>> not be Python or Lua, it must be C, C++, C#, Haskell, Ocaml, i.e
>>> languages that are designed to develop large systems.
>>>
>>> But most of all it needs to stabilize and polish, not change all the
>>> time. I think its feature set is very good already.
>>> We are far from having explored all its possibilities.
>>>
>>>> Instead of adding more and more features into a rigid language, it
>>>> needs to be made more flexible and extensible, both syntactically and
>>>> semantically.
>>
>> This kind of attitude "we need big fat bullshit like Java and heavy use
>> of OO and idioms and EH and all that other crap" is broken and false.
>> And you have no way to prove that Python for example wouldn't scale for
>> large projects; its main fault is that the default implementation is
>> rather slow, but it's not pretty much missing anything required for a
>> large project.
>>
>
> Python is my favorite scripting language, but I would never propose a
> dynamic language for programming on the large.
>
> My employer does consulting for big projects. The type of entreprise
> projects that require multi-site development scattered across the globe,
> sometimes with 300+ developers.
>
> There is no way a dynamic language would work in such scenarios, without
> having a constant broken build on the CI system.
>
> --
> Paulo

Wait, dynamic-language programmers use CI?

*ducks and runs*

-- 
- Alex