Extended Type Design.

[eao197]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:56:57 +0300, Dan <murpsoft at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>> No, at first there must be 'D with macros' (like 'C with classes') and
>> only then -- D++ :))
>
> *shudder*

It was a joke.

> D already has templates.  it shouldn't have a separate macro language.   
> Having one indicates that the language itself somehow fails.  Templates  
> *should* be sufficient.

My expirience in C++ and Ruby says that a language must have no macro  
system at all (like in Ruby) or must have a very powerful one (much more  
powerful than in C/C++, Nemerle is a fresh example). If D have started  
movement to support macros it must go as far as possible. I think.

> Using the ++ notation for the language is dangerous.  It allows you to  
> only upgrade once.  You can't have a D, D++, D 2.0 etc, it just doesn't  
> fit, 'causing the language to completely stagnate.  Then someone else  
> has to come along and invent a language E.

E programming language already exists: http://www.erights.org/ ;)
And it grows from the other side of BCPL-C-C++ family -- from Java's  
branch. So the name of D can't be changed to E, only to D++ or D 2.0 :)

> The simpler the language is, the better.

Oberon was a very simple language, but where is it now?
C++ have never been simple. Java isn't a simple language now. Ruby isn't  
simple. And this language are very successful in real world. And D will  
be, I hope.

-- 
Regards,
Yauheni Akhotnikau