Axiomatic purity of D

[Justin Johansson]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> lurker wrote:
>> Justin Johansson Wrote:
>>
>>> To what degree do the author and advocates of the D(2) Programming
>>> Language believe that it is axiomatically pure and to what degree
>>> to the naysayers believe that it is conversely impure.  Further,
>>> does axiomatic purity in a PL really matter?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for all opinions offered.
>>
>> What *is* axiomatic purity? A quick google books search returned 
>> titles like:
>>
>> "Jesus remembered"
>> "American physics in transition: a history of conceptual change in"
>> "Feminism-art-theory: an anthology, 1968-2000"
>> "Feminism and tradition in aesthetics"
>> "Constructive interventions: paradigms, process and practice of .."
>> "Agriculture and rural connections in the Pacific, 1500-1900"
>> "Possessed by the past: the heritage crusade and the spoils of history"
>>
> 
> It's safety, which requires two proofs: progress and preservation. I 
> found this excerpt from a book I'd recommend:
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=ti6zoAC9Ph8C&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=safety+%3D+progress+%2B+preservation&source=bl&ots=EzM9xEpZWD&sig=CJrn0iCMOCrBk_YF9CvXn-2GG60&hl=en&ei=nnJTTIyREoigsQPY8JXaAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=safety%20%3D%20progress%20%2B%20preservation&f=false 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrei

Thanks for the recommendation; going by the 11/12 positive reader
comments from that link as well, this book has been added to my
reading list.

Justin