A summary of D's design principles

[retard]

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:17:17 +0200, Pelle wrote:

> On 09/29/2010 01:22 PM, retard wrote:
>> Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:00:33 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:38:43 -0400, retard<re at tard.com.invalid> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:27 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Does C#
>>>> have access to inline assembler? Agreed, it doesn't provide many new
>>>> high level features compared to D, but it doesn't have all the
>>>> interfaces with raw metal. That makes it higher level language in my
>>>> book. It's less dependent on the hardware platform.
>>>
>>> You mean, C# doesn't provide access to the lower level constructs? 
>>> IMO D is at the same level even if it does provide inline assembler. 
>>> The simple fact is, you don't *have* to use low level features of D,
>>> you can stick to the C#-level constructs.  Hell, you can even write
>>> full useful programs in D without ever touching a pointer or inline
>>> assembler.
>>
>> Being a higher level language isn't some positive optimum. I guess part
>> of the reason you disagree is that you take everything personally if
>> someone is critical towards D. My personal opinion is that D is in many
>> cases a *better* language than C# and one of the reasons is that it's a
>> lower level language. You can find one definition here:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language
>>
>>
> Let me provide silly pictures. Ascii, of course.
> 
>   D   C#
> --- ---  <-- high level
>   |   |
>   |   |
>   |   |
>   |  ---
>   |
> ---      <-- low level
> 
> D providing lower level features may make it a lower level language, but
> it also might not. :-)
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I am wrong.

You're not wrong. I saw your point and liked the fact that you didn't 
start arguing pointlessly. The picture also illustrates what I originally 
had in mind. These terms aren't well defined which makes this kind of 
discussion rather unfruitful in the first place.