Pure functions in D

[Bent Rasmussen]

> I agree that this seems where the trend goes, but:
> - I think you can't change the language too much. D is too much based on 
> mutable data to change it all now. So I think it may be better to invent a 
> new language that uses mostly immutable data (Scala?) instead of turning D 
> inside-out. I presume Walter too will invent other languages when D is 
> finished, or even along the way.
> - While today some languages show the advantages of immutable data, 
> there's probably space still for a niche with a language with mostly 
> mutable data structures. D is for that niche (today that niche is very 
> large but it may shrink in the following years).

It's not about either or. The philosphy of D, says that there is no 
religion. Nevertheless there is still bias. The bias is whitnessed by 
public/private-by-default, variant/const/invariant-by-default, 
pure/impure-by-default and shared/unshared-by-default. I say: move defaults 
towards the sensible future. This is not the same as a religious outlawing 
of features. There is still D1 for the past.

Maybe an IDE could be made to "reverse" the default so it looks like the 
opposite.

> Bye,
> bearophile