Using D

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 14:48:15 UTC, Paulo  Pinto wrote:
> On Monday, 8 September 2014 at 08:50:54 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> On Saturday, 6 September 2014 at 02:24:35 UTC, Mike Parker 
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/6/2014 12:32 AM, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I don't find it  restrictive at all (I actually enjoy it; I 
>>>> also enjoy
>>>> C). As long as you work within its boundaries and use it as 
>>>> it's meant
>>>> to be used, it works perfectly well."
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this statement a bit contradictory :) It's not 
>>>> restrictive as long
>>>> as you stay within its boundaries. In D you can stretch the 
>>>> boundaries a
>>>> bit.
>>>
>>> Not contradictory, no. Every language has boundaries and you 
>>> can stretch them in any language. My point is that when you 
>>> do so you are then in the wild frontier and are more likely 
>>> to be frustrated in your efforts.
>>
>> But in D you have to walk quite a bit to reach the boundaries. 
>> In Java they're around every corner. It's like a lunatic 
>> asylum where you're allowed to do anything you want, except 
>> for going out into the real world.
>>
>> The most frustrating thing is that programmers have to wait 
>> for years to get this or that feature. Then there are weird 
>> things like auto-boxing etc. that are down to OOP ideology. If 
>> people increasingly use static methods to work around OO, 
>> well, then why not get rid of the rigid OOP regime altogether? 
>> OO is a pattern that helps to deal with certain problems, not 
>> a cure for everything. It should never have become a religion, 
>> a belief one would base a whole language on. The hello world 
>> program shows how absurd this is, and one absurdity begets 
>> another one ...
>>
>> public class MyClass {
>>
>>    public static void main(String[] args) {
>>        System.out.println("Hello, World!");
>>    }
>>
>> }
>>
>> 1. Write a class
>> 2. Use a static method to work around OO.
>> 3. Hm. WTF?
>>
>
> 1. Write a class
> 2. Use a class method in OO terminology
> 3. Just like any other pure OOP language (Smalltalk, Eiffel, 
> Sather, ...)
>
> This is not Java specific.

Still, it's a bit OTT, isn't it?

> Autoboxing is already present in Lisp and Smalltalk with their 
> type tagging.
>
> --
> Paulo

Yes, and that's what happens, when you build a language on 
ideology. There's no need for a 100% OO approach.