null references redux + Looney Tunes

[language_fan]

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:35:22 -0400, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:

> language_fan wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:32:28 -0400, Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't believe D is having some features merely to attract attention
>>> to it, that's the thing I like best about D; it provides a very large
>>> set of tools and let me choose how to use them, instead of enforcing a
>>> certain model or paradigm.
>> 
>> There has to be some limit on the amount of features a language can
>> have before managing the complexity gets too large. Imagine that D 4.0
>> had 50 keywords more than D 2.0 currently has. Those features would
>> make your code 5% faster. Would you still love D?
> 
> Think of the english languages, how many words does it have? I would
> hate to try and express my ideas if I had only 100 words to choose from.
> Some people do but we call them simple minded or uneducated :)

Comparing spoken languages and formal languages used to program computers 
is rather far fetched. Even a small child recognizes more words than a 
complex programming language has keywords. There are programming 
languages with rather minimal set of core keywords and constructs. This 
makes them in no way more suitable for less intelligent people. And your 
stance of disagreeing with everyone here does not make you better than 
the rest of us, it is just irritating.

D is pretty verbose in many respects. There are some totally unnecessary 
words like 'body' in the grammar. Also things like foreach_reverse should 
just die. Even a novice programmer can write a meta-program to replace 
foreach_reverse without any runtime performance hit. Designing a crappy 
programming language is not hard. Usually the elegance arises from clever 
use of powerful, generic core structures.