too much sugar not good for the health

[janderson]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Neal Becker" <ndbecker2 at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:etr33u$46c$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> I've been following D with great interest.  I hope the language will not 
>> add
>> such 'features' without great need - it really detracts from the purity 
>> and
>> simplicity.
> 
> The only response I have to this is: have a look at Java to see a language 
> with virtually no sugar.  It's so bland and unexpressive it _hurts_.  A tiny 
> bit of sugar can go a long way to making the language more intuitive to use, 
> not just prettier. 
> 
> 

Agreed. Even Java are adding more an more sugar with each release. Also 
reading all that bland code takes more time to learn then simply 
learning a new feature.

Personally I don't think D is anywhere near the threshold of having to 
much.  Take a look at the most successful langugage (English), it keeps 
getting bigger and bigger every day.  We just don't have enough syntax 
to describe everything.  Really, for a beginner learning D its not that 
much more to learn.

Having said that, I'm still learning things about C++ (after 10years) 
and it is meant to  be one of the smaller languages (well not compared 
with java, but anyhow).  I think its more to do with the unexpected and 
sometimes weird behaviors of its syntax.  I have no problem figuring out 
what

I think D is more straight forward, things work as expected and will 
often encourage/replace well established design patterns.  D may have 
more terms however many replace what would otherwise be a more 
complicated in C++.  Which all adds up to  getting more done in less 
time.  It only takes a minute or 2 to learn a new concept.  If you use 
it more then twice, then you've probably got that time back.

-Joel