A few notes on choosing between Go and D for a quick project

Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat Mar 14 12:47:34 PDT 2015

On 3/14/2015 2:26 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 00:22 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> On 3/12/2015 11:57 PM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> How about lining up some features for removal.
>> Easier said than done. I've proposed a couple things for removal, but got a lot
>> of pushback. Some things have been successfully removed:
> Pushback can be ignored, and indeed should in some cases.

Not ignored. But sometimes I do override others' judgement in the interest of 
doing what I believe is best. Somebody has to make decisions on controversial 

(I had proposed removing the 'lazy' storage class.)

>> . octal literals
> C should be incinerated for the 0777 abomination. At least 0o777 can
> work reasonably.

Even better:


The point is, with a library abstraction the core language can be simplified. 
D's ability to create user defined literals largely ends the pressure to make 
more complicated and specialized core language literals.

>> . builtin complex numbers
> Electronics folk love these. Many people use Python exactly for this
> type.

Complex numbers are still available, but as a library type, which is not 
inferior to the (former) builtin type.

>> Has any language been successful at abandoning their user base (i.e. existing
>> code)? Going from D1 to D2 nearly destroyed D. I'm not eager to try that again.
> The war is being played out in the Python 2/3 arena certainly.
> Interestingly though there are fewer and fewer Python 2 hold outs. Their
> holding out has made Python 3 change a little, and for the better in my
> view – even though I refuse to write any Python 2 specific code.

It's a good example. Didn't Perl 6 go through a paroxysm, too? But not so 

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list