Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > And while I do quite a bit of concurrent programming,
> > it's not in a way that will reap any benefit from this design.  In fact, the
> > language features added to support it are more of an annoyance than
> > they are an aid.  This may very well mean that D is simply not the
> > language for me in the long term.  However, with C and C++ as the
> > only real alternatives for systems programming, there aren't many
> > other options available.
> There are several different paradigms for concurrent programming. D
> won't be forcing one paradigm on anyone, it's sort of like oop vs free
> functions. They both work, and you can mix & match them as desired.

I for one like the idea of a multiparadigm language.  First of all, mixing
languages is usually at least somewhat of a pain, so the desire to avoid this  is
understandable.

At its lowest level(assembly language) all programming is basically imperative.  A
fundamental rule in designing just about any system is to avoid abstraction
inversion, or the re-implementing of low-level concepts on top of high-level
concepts.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_inversion.  This pretty
much means, IMHO, that any properly designed programming language must have decent
support for basic imperative programming.

This leaves functional programming and OOP.  I think we can all agree that some
concepts (such as GUIs) are more naturally expressed in OOP and others (such as
mathematical functions) are more naturally expressed in a functional paradigm.
Therefore, a complete language should support both, and a complete programmer
should be familiar with both.