Programming Language for Games, part 3

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 11/1/2014 3:32 PM, bearophile wrote:
> 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.

This is false.

>> - enums were strong typed
>
> D enums are only half strongly typed.

This is on purpose, because otherwise about half of what enums are used for 
would no longer be possible - such as bit flags.

A strongly typed enum can be made using a struct.


>> - had namespaces or real modules
>
> D module system has holes like Swiss cheese. And its design is rather simplistic.

Oh come on.


>> - no implicit type conversions
> D has a large part of the bad implicit type conversions of C.

D has removed implicit conversions that result in data loss. Removing the rest 
would force programs to use casting instead, which is far worse.


>> - 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.

D doesn't have AST macros for very deliberate reasons, discussed at length here. 
It is not an oversight.


>> 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.

D does more than any other system language.