Java binaries

[rumbu]

On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 00:15:00 UTC, David Piepgrass 
wrote:

> How is "looking" like C# relevant? D looks 90% like C++ too, 
> and D is still better. Certainly D is more powerful than C# on 
> the whole.

This is not a debate C# vs D. D is clearly more powerful than C# 
with the current language semantics. But, once D will be adapted 
to generate IL code, most of advantages will be lost. You cannot 
have assembler code (may be IL code, but this can be achieved 
using Emit in C# also), compile time reflection will become 
redundant because of the intrinsic runtime reflection, most of 
the templates will be constrained to generic types. In a 
pottential D#, Phobos will not be used since you have the .net 
framework. Also because of lack of some D features (like 
readonly, mutiple interface implementation of the same method, 
namespaces), more keywords will be needed to describe the code 
and that will make it similar to C# more than expected.

The irony is the fact that digging in the forum history, you will 
find how D has evolved to be more and more C# like. Just look at 
the recent changes, "alias" has evolved to the exact syntax of 
"using" from C#.

If the initial audience of D was the C++ programmer, I think it's 
time to make a step forward and look also to lure the C# 
programmer since the syntax is very similar. The most important 
argument for the C# programmer to use D is the fact that D 
compiles to native code. Offering something like D# to the C# 
programmer is out of his interest, imho.