Moving back to .NET

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 at 10:18:16 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> If you want to know what D is in details, see dlang.org for 
> language spec.

No, that is backwards. :-) The language spec is the product. What 
is needed is a definition of what the problem area is (e.g. use 
cases).

problem area -> design -> language spec

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

That is actually pretty close. The more powerful semantic 
analysis engines are based on horn clauses.

(you translate the imperative constructs into horn clauses, then 
do analysis)

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

Not real difference regarding pointers.

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

No, remove them from the language and replace them with library 
friendly constructs.

>> - Add language features that enables proper custom pointers.
>
> Phobos implements custom pointers.

They are not sound, and that is a language issue, not a library 
issue.