Nimrod language

[Chad J]

On 05/24/2012 07:21 PM, Araq wrote:
> 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. ;-)

OK, now I'm curious.  Why?

> 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.
>

Wouldn't it be good enough to define the order arbitrarily when building 
your symbol table?  What kind of information is this allowing the 
programmer to convey to the compiler?

I'm already skeptical because I have no intuition for how this allows me 
to better optimize my code ;)

Btw, I've looked at Nimrod a while ago (year+) and found it very 
elegant.  I love good metaprogramming.  I think my only complaints were 
the bus-factor and the apparent lack of array slices (the kind that 
doesn't cause copying).  Still, very promising.