Alternative /hipster/ syntaxes for D

[Iain Buclaw]

On 29 March 2012 14:21, deadalnix <deadalnix at gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 29/03/2012 13:22, Iain Buclaw a écrit :
>>
>> On 29 March 2012 11:57, ezdiy<eezdiy at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 29 March 2012 at 10:49:45 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 29/03/2012 11:47, ezdiy a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> D syntax being C-ish one is great for oldschool class of programmers
>>>>> coming C/C++/Java/C# backgrounds, and although it's quite conscise one
>>>>> compared to, eg. javas, it's still much on the overly verbose side for
>>>>> some people (ie. at least for me :)
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is, how one would go around to successfully implement an
>>>>> alternative modern syntax to "fix" this. Are there some attempts out
>>>>> there?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This isn't a problem. Compare how successful
>>>> C/C++/Java/C#/PHP/Javascript/Go/Objective-C/ActionScript are compared to
>>>> languages with « quite concise » syntax. This is a no match.
>>>>
>>>> This style has proven to be readable, convenient and many programmers
>>>> are
>>>> used to it. If you want to change that, you don't only need to prove
>>>> that
>>>> another syntax is better, but also that it is THAT MUCH BETTER that
>>>> changing
>>>> what everybody is used worth it. This sounds difficult to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not here to start flame about old vs new, use irc for that :)
>>>
>>> Speaking to the point: Delight seems as a nice concept, however it's
>>> awfully
>>> implemented (hack of 3years outdated gdc). Such hacks *must* be
>>> implemented
>>> as code translators for reasons you've cited. Ie i can just generate code
>>> for people who refuse to learn something new.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like literate programming to me.
>>
>
> And that isn't really « new ».

Or very successful...  however, success is in the eye of the beholder. :~)


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';