Rust and D

Timon Gehr timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Sat Sep 29 15:41:15 PDT 2012


On 09/29/2012 09:12 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 9/29/2012 3:54 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:
>> So, with this in mind, do you think these hypothetical people are all
>> justified?
>>
>> (a) [Go programmer]: D is rubbish because it doesn't have channels.
>> (b) [Lisp programmer]: D is rubbish because it doesn't have
>> homoiconicity.
>> (c) [Haskell programmer]: D is rubbish because it doesn't have full
>> type inference.
>>
>> All of those things are considered "a major thing" by their users, and
>> many
>> people do find them to "make a big difference."
>
> People can and do make those arguments and justifications.
>
> The question is, really, how large of a class of programming problems
> does each of those features address?
>

a) can be done in a library. (eg. in D, but not in Go) Therefore,
claiming that D does not have channels is moot anyway.
b), c) enable more powerful abstractions. They help all programs
if the programmer knows how to leverage them.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list