On C/C++ undefined behaviours

[Justin Johansson]

On 22/08/10 21:01, retard wrote:
> Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:31:16 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> But still, being able to consistently match C++ at what it's good at and
>> C# and Java at what they're good at in one language is big, and I really
>> don't think that we're there yet. I don't know how efficient we are in
>> comparison to C++, but I expect that there are a number of areas which
>> need improvement (things like inlining, the garbage collector, etc.) if
>> we want the average D program to match the average C++ program for
>> efficiency. And we definitely don't match Java and C# for ease of use
>> and maintainability at this point, but most of that is simply an issue
>> of libraries and tools, both of which are being worked on. So, we're
>> getting there, but I don't think that we're there yet. And certainly,
>> once we do get there, there's no reason to stay only "on par" with them.
>> We should always be looking to improve D and its libraries and tools.
>
> Should D also look more academic than Haskell, F#, Scala, DDC, Clojure,
> BitC, Factor, and Ur/Web ?

No, of course not, well, uhhm, at least going by the blurp at

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/index.html

where it says

"It [D] is not governed by a corporate agenda or any overarching theory 
of programming. The needs and contributions of the D programming 
community form the direction it goes."

Where is it written that the design of a PL should be governed by
an overarching theory of programming (and/or a corporate agenda)?

Axioms and logic and all that formal stuff are just so anti-democratic.
Ad hoc PL design by newsgroup is so much more consensual and politically
correct in this modern age of equity and diversity.

:-)