"The End of Native Code"

[Andrei Khropov]

David Medlock wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
> > pragma wrote:
> > 
> > > Slashdot had an interesting ask slashdot article yesterday about when  is
> > > it the right time to go whole-hog into interpreted/VM style language
> > > development.
> > > 
> > > http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/06/06/12/2044245.shtml
> > > 
> > > As its an issue that we're all familar with, I figured I'd read and  see
> > > why this article had 1000+ comments.  I was actually quite suprised to
> > > find a  number of people, mostly C++ guys, clamoring for "native
> > > compilation plus garbage collection" or some variant thereof.  What was
> > > also suprising was the  number of "have you not seen D yet?" replies to
> > > these posts, and how well they  were modded *up*.  As slashdot is
> > > peer-moderated, this means that registered users  of the site had to take
> > > the time to hand out positive reviews on those  particular posts.
> > > 
> > > So I have to say: you guys rock.  Remember, slashdot users pretty much
> > > hung D from the yard-arm on not one but two articles about D.  What I saw
> > > today was a subtle, but noticable shift in this attitude.  The word
> > > finally seems  to be getting out.
> > 
> > 
> > I saw the article when it first came out, but I obviously need to go  read
> > the followups.
> > 
> > The gist of the article as I interpreted it is that people go to script
> > languages because they are more productive. Why are they more productive?
> > 
> > 1) garbage collection
> > 
> > 2) dynamic typing
> > 
> > 3) lots of libraries
> > 
> > D's got garbage collection.
> > 
> > Dynamic typing is interesting in that while it is more productive, it's  a
> > big reason why scripting languages will always be slooow. It's also
> > interesting in that if you look real hard at C++ templates, a lot of  what
> > they are used for is to fake dynamic typing.
> > 
> > D is moving towards what I call implicit typing - I've been taking a  hard
> > look at where one is required to specify a type, and instead trying  to
> > figure out a way the type can be inferred instead (foreach is a good
> > example). Implicit typing gets D a number of the benefits of dynamic
> > typing with less complexity than the C++ template approach.
>  <snip>
> 
> Are you saying you will move towards SML like typing (Hindley-Milner type) ?

See Nemerle (http://nemerle.org/) - Hidney-Milner in C-family syntax. Looks
very promising.


-- 
AKhropov