null references redux + Looney Tunes

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

language_fan wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:39:29 -0400, Justin Johansson wrote:
> 
>> People might remember that when I picked up D and joined this forum just
>> some 3 or so weeks ago I made mention of being a Scala refugee.***  When
>> asked what I didn't like about Scala I commented about there being too
>> many language constructs.
> 
> Compared to D that is not even true. The Scala language spec lists 40 
> keywords + 10 additional reserved tokens. D 2.0 spec lists 106 keywords + 
> a bit over 60 reserved tokens. In general there are no features in Scala 
> that are not built around those keywords and tokens. The keywords and 
> token are not more heavily overloaded than in D, on the contrary in my 
> subjective opinion.
> 
> So how I see things is that the language core in Scala is about 75% 
> smaller, faster to learn, and easier to reason about. I have to admit 
> that the features often are more powerful than in D. You need to 
> recognize concepts like contra/co/invariance, higher order functions and 
> kinds, and algebra that is based on terms discussed in lambda calculus 
> books.

I agree that a hemorrhage of keywords is of dubious value, and Walter 
has been much more generous with keywords than I would have ever liked.

Assuming you're not hanging out in this group just to feel smug: what 
steps do you think we could take to make D a better language than it 
currently is?


Andrei