John Carmack on Eclipse performance

Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakeling at webdrake.net
Fri Oct 4 16:38:07 PDT 2013


On 01/10/13 14:14, Dicebot wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 October 2013 at 12:02:29 UTC, w0rp wrote:
>> I'm waiting for Carmack to adopt D already. Barring some implementation
>> details (GC issues, shared libraries, bla bla) it's pretty much the perfect
>> language for what he wants to do. (Fast and functional in parts.) Plus, if
>> anyone could work around issues or figure out how to do really cool things
>> with D, it would be Carmack.
>
> He is familiar with D and has shown appreciation for D `pure` functions in his
> twitter posts.

One thing that I noted in his QuakeCon talk was his remarks about multiparadigm 
languages versus strictly functional languages, and how the former while they 
seem superior have the problem that, because you _can_ break the paradigm, you _do_.

I rather suspected he might have had D partially in mind with that remark, 
although he was gracious enough to not single out any languages.

That said, although I don't feel experienced enough in functional programming to 
comment with any authority, my impression is that D lets you be as strictly 
functional as you want to be, and has enough to let software architects impose 
strict purity etc. on a codebase.  But it is arguably less nice to have to keep 
marking "pure const nothrow ..." everywhere, plus const/immutable parameters, 
compared to something like Haskell where everything is that way by default.

I don't suppose it's possible to do that either by scope or even by module?

     module my.module const nothrow pure @safe

or

     const nothrow pure @safe
     {
         // my code here ...
     }



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list