Programming Language for Games, part 3

[Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d]

Am 01.11.2014 um 23:32 schrieb bearophile:
> Paulo Pinto:
>
>> - arrays were bound checked (just use a compiler flags and dataflow to
>> remove them like any sane language)
>
> D removes very little bound checks. No data flow is used for this.
>
>
>> - enums were strong typed
>
> D enums are only half strongly typed.
>
>
>> - had namespaces or real modules
>
> D module system has holes like Swiss cheese. And its design is rather
> simplistic.
>
>
>> - no implicit type conversions
>
> D has a large part of the bad implicit type conversions of C.
>
>
>> - had a sane macro system
>
> There's no macro system in D. Mixins are an improvement over the
> preprocessor, but they lead to messy code.
>
>
>> But I guess D already covers it...
>
> D solves only part of the problems. And you have not listed several
> important things. There's still a lot of way to go to have good enough
> system languages.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Maybe I should spend more time playing around with D, instead of just 
advocating it.

However JVM/.NET languages with a grain of C++ salt for JNI/PInvoke, are 
what my employer and our customers care about, so I can't justify to our 
customers any alternatives.

As for the issues, I was being nice to C as those are the issues I find 
more problematic.

--
Paulo