Timon Gehr timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Sun Feb 12 06:55:30 PST 2012

On 02/12/2012 12:20 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> 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++.

So is garbage collection.

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

I wouldn't go as far as to call it magic.

>>> 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,

Very true and very sad.

> 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.

The D philosophy is "The Right Thing". Therefore it is adequate to 
discuss better solutions for 'solved' problems on this NG.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list