Moving back to .NET

[Kagamin via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 09:25:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> That's wonderfully undefined. A pragmatic compiled language can 
> be anything from ATS to compiled Python.

If you want to know what D is in details, see dlang.org for 
language spec.

>> Static analysis is a focus and believed to be done with 
>> relatively simple and clean language rules that ensure correct 
>> results.
>
> Which D is not.

If one could design a language with just four words, it would be 
lisp :)

>> Current direction seems to be explicit 
>> structs+destructors+allocators.
>
> I don't see this. Allocators is purely a library feature and is 
> not designed to be explicit either.
>
> Buf if that is right then:
>
> - Get rid of the dichotomy between classes and structs, having 
> syntactically different pointers for classes without any 
> semantic significance is rather annoying.

Semantic significance is that classes are polymorphic and hence 
reference types, structs are value types.

> - Get rid of all gc-dependent language features.

@nogc

> - Add language features that enables proper custom pointers.

Phobos implements custom pointers.