Paulo Pinto pjmlp at progtools.org
Sun Feb 12 03:20:50 PST 2012

Am 12.02.2012 11:55, schrieb Daniel Murphy:
> "Paulo Pinto"<pjmlp at progtools.org>  wrote in message
> news:jh7v08$2chs$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> If you remove all of that then how good would D- be in regard with
>> existing languages being used for the same tasks?
> You still have all of D's compile-time magic, which I miss every time I need
> to do embedded programming.  You still have the simple syntax improvement.
> I would love to be able to do away with the preprocessor and
> stupidly_long_method_names_because_of_no_overloading_or_method_syntax.

Overloading is also possible with C++.

I know compile-time magic is messy (to say the least) with C++, still it 
is already there.

>> So what does D- bring to the table, besides fragmenting the community?
> No need to fork the lanugage - just add a couple of pragmas and a basic C
> backend.

How basic would this C backend be? Specially taking into account it 
would be one extra backend to support and not all embedded processors 
are even able to support full ANSI C even on this day and age.

I am just playing a bit the devil's advocate here, as I think our 
industry suffers a lot from the "Worse is Better" principle, and as such
one really needs to think about ROI when proposing new solutions for
problems with existing solutions, even if they aren't the best ones.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list