Nimrod language

[Araq]

On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 22:56:52 UTC, Kevin Cox wrote:
> On May 24, 2012 6:53 PM, "Froglegs" <lugtug at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Like the design, syntax is way better than D
>>
>>  But half of what makes a language are the 
>> compilers/debuggers/tool
>
> I like many ideas of the language but there are some 
> show-stoppers for me.
> For example the fact that you have to define things in order.  
> I shouldn't
> have to deal with that in this day and age.

Nimrod is full of constructs that have inlining semantics and as 
such declaration order matters quite a bit. The D compiler 
has/had bugs with this feature for a reason. ;-)
I'm considering to weaken the requirement but I don't mind this 
feature: Having the order reflect the call graph has its 
advantages too. Many consider the resulting order *backwards*, 
but at least there is *an* order.