Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[Bill Baxter]

dsimcha wrote:
> == 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.

Agreed.  For a while I was thinking I would do my work in Python for the 
high level with D for the low level.  But debugging mixed-language 
projects like that is a pain.  With Python basically you kill 
performance any time you stick in a loop over a large number of 
elements.  So the granularity at which you start wanting to delegate to 
the fast language becomes very high.  To me it seemed easier to just do 
things all in D in the end, and thereby never have to worry whether a 
loop was going to kill my performance.


> 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.

Well the IMGUI people might argue with you there.
https://mollyrocket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=134&sid=fbeef82ffb9f71fe6637a7f499903841

> Therefore, a complete language should support both, and a complete programmer
> should be familiar with both.

But I agree with you anyway.  Lisp advocates, on the other hand, would 
probably say here that you can do OOP in Lisp (and they'd probably add 
that it is 10x better than the OOP in C++ for some reason or other, and 
that they had the problem solved in the 70's before anyone even had a 
word for it.)

--bb