Is D a cult?

[Lutger]

retard wrote:

> Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:12:14 +0100, Lutger wrote:
> 
>> retard wrote:
>> 
>>> Sun, 07 Mar 2010 05:05:03 +0000, BCS wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello Jane,
>>>> 
>>>>> Is D a cult?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> No, not yet. Walter hasn't figured out how to brain wash people over a
>>>> newsgroup yet. However I think Andrei's working on it and Don should
>>>> have a patch in time for TDPL going out ;b
>>> 
>>> FWIW, I think there is a kernel of truth in the original claim. People
>>> tend to agree evey time Walter proposes a new feature such as built-in
>>> regexps - yes, they were removed shortly afterwards. But when
>>> bearophile or some retard propose some features from functional
>>> languages that are natural extensions to existing ones, everyone hates
>>> them and tells us to go back to our ivory towers.
>> 
>> That's weird, I don't see this at all. Maybe you focus too much on one
>> or two negative comments?
>> 
>> I also don't understand that you think D designers have a bias against
>> functional programming, especially since the majority of the features
>> that have been implemented the last years are heavily influenced by that
>> style of programming.
> 
> Uh, majority of the features? From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/
> features2.html:
<snip>
> 
> Let's see what features I had in mind:
> 
> - Algrebraic data types
> - Pattern matching (extension to enum/string/integer accepting switch)
> - Higher kinded types
> - Tuples (no auto-folding, real product types)
> - Built-in variants (real sum types)
> - Currying, lazy evaluation
> - Fusion optimizations (e.g. list and stream fusion)
> - Type classes
> - basic control constructs are expressions, not statements (e.g. unify if-
> then-else and : ? into a functional if-then-else)
> - better syntax for lambdas
> 
> 
> [1] if immutability is considered functional

Isn't this THE cornerstone of functional programming style???

> [2] if type inference is considered functional

I don't see why.

With 'majority of features' I meant the ones that have most impact or is 
spend the most effort on. Not just a count of checkboxes. A lot of those 
features you mention are either small or cleanup of the language. Remember 
that D is at heart not a functional language, so it's not surprising a lot of 
improvements are not of that nature.

The const/immutable regime however and everything that connected to it (like 
referential transparency), has been the main focus of design. Furthermore, a 
lot of phobos is at least heavily inspired by functional programming ideas 
(map/reduce/curry/compose/variant, etc.). 

I'm not arguing with you about what feature set is good / bad / special or 
how it is implemented. Just saying that functional language ideas are being 
ignored is complete nonsense.