D vs Go on reddit

[Ulrik Mikaelsson]

2011/2/16 Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail>:
> We must not be saying (or thinking) the same thing then, because I do think
> it is worthwhile to have orthogonality as one of the primary design goals.
> I believe we are still not thinking of orthogonality in the same way. You
> seem to be thinking in terms of pure simplicity, how easy a language is to
> describe, learn and understand. I'm thinking of how much expressiveness you
> get per amount of "complexity" (how easy it is to describe, learn, and
> understand).
>
>
> So considering C++ and Java again: then yes, C++ is much more complex than
> Java (even new-school Java, barring generics perhaps). But I never said
> otherwise. I did say that Java is not more orthogonal than C++, but not in
> the sense that Java is just as orthogonal as C++. Rather I was trying to say
> that the comparison doesn't make much sense in the first place, because Java
> has much less "capabilities". Like, you can compare D's meta-programming
> capabilites with C++, because in D you can do pretty much the same things as
> C++ (if not more) meta-programming-wise, yet the way things work in D are
> much more orthogonal, more simpler to describe and understand (and probably
> because of that, more powerful). The same comparison could be done with
> other features, like operator overloading between D and C++. But not between
> C++ and Java because doesn't support most of this functionality (and it
> doesn't make sense to compare with the Java alternatives)

I completely agree in all of this, but I think orthogonality is a poor
term for it.

I think what you're describing is closer to the term "elegance", in
the mathematical sense
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_elegance). Mathematical
elegance is basically about
 - Finding the "simplest" expression or solution for a problem, that
still accounts for all possibilities.
 - Finding generally applicable solutions for many similar problems.
(Even when the do not seem very similar. Consider, for instance
physical velocity, and bitrates in computers)
 - Finding a solution few dependencies on other work or assumptions.

It is also very close to the principle of Occams Razor,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor), basically saying that
given two solutions to a problem which is equally "correct" (or equal
probability of being correct), the one that is "simpler" is
preferable. (The exact meaning of simpler is open to interpretation
though. ;)

A couple of good related quotes;
 "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Da Vinci
 "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Einstein

And finally one from Ockham himself:
 "It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer."