Does D have too many features?

Timon Gehr timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Mon Apr 30 17:02:36 PDT 2012


On 05/01/2012 01:20 AM, akaz wrote:
>
> I expected to meet D and exclaim: wow! C++ done right! Instead, I feel
> like being forced to learn another,

Yes, D is its own thing.

> completely new paradigm language,
> like I would start with Lisp or something else.
>

OTOH, this seems to be an exaggeration.

> Remember:
> "Within D, there is a much smaller and cleaner language struggling to
> get out".
>


I don't see the value of that assertion from a pragmatic point of view.

What is to be gained? Note that you have discussed mostly syntax.


* adding -> does not make the language smaller or cleaner and it
   complicates generic code for no benefit.

* loosening the syntactic distinction between value and reference type
   variable declarations could be done, (to the neat effect that
   tail-qualified class references would trivially work) but there
   shouldn't be any directly built-in support for treating polymorphic
   class instances as values.

* I agree that the @property situation needs to be cleaned up. There
   are only five @annotations in total. And what you have said does not
   apply to the other four.

* how p[0..len] can be seen as an issue instead of as great completely
   escapes my mind.

* I agree on supporting deducing length for static arrays. (there is a
   int[$] arr = [1,2,3]; proposal.)

* the syntax for arrays is straightforward and I don't see any
   potential for improvement.

* the foo(a,&b) example is biased because it uses a meaningless
   function name. From the function name alone it is often *almost*
   clear that a certain argument will be modified. & & & spam is not
   'clean' either.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list