Rust and D

[Paulo Pinto]

On Saturday, 29 September 2012 at 12:04:50 UTC, Peter Alexander 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 September 2012 at 11:18:40 UTC, Paulo Pinto 
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 29 September 2012 at 10:53:57 UTC, Peter Alexander
>>> My question to you: Is it okay to reject D solely with these 
>>> arguments? If not, how is this any different from rejecting 
>>> Go solely from its lack of generics?
>>
>> Because except for Go, all static languages developed after 
>> 1990, which managed to gain mainstream use, have some form of 
>> generics.
>
> There's two ways to interpret this sentence:
>
> 1. You claim it is okay to reject Go because it differs from 
> other statically typed languages, or
> 2. You claim that all statically typed languages must have 
> generics to be worth using.
>
> I hope it is not 1, and if it is 2 then again, I find this 
> incredibly unimaginative.

It is 2.

And before you say that it is due to lack of experience with Go.

I have tried. You will find lots of posts made by me about 
generics
and doing systems programming with GC enabled languages in gonuts.

Actually, you may even find some early code reviews made to my 
early
attempts to create the Windows version of the os.user package. 
Which
was latter on picked up by the Go team.

Or the early attempts to support some form of UI in Windows.

So I don't dismiss Go without language experience.

>
> Interestingly, Rob Pike comments on this world view:
>
> http://commandcenter.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-more.html
> ----

I belong to the C++ category he describes there. Actually his 
blog entry was discussed to great lengths at Lambda the Ultimate.

Personally I think they are throwing the baby with the water in 
terms of language design.

Go would have been a great language before Generic Programming, 
Meta-programming and functional programming became mainstream in 
the IT corporations.

Nowadays it feels like a step backwards. While using Go I 
travelled back in time to my university days when I thought 
Oberon or Component Pascal would become mainstream. Languages 
which share the same design philosophy.

But that was back in 1994.

--
Paulo