GSoC Mentor Summit Observations and D Marketing

[Gor Gyolchanyan]

I think combining straight-forward uncomprimised support for both
bare-metal access AND very high-level constructs is the thing, that no
other language has dome before and D has a great shot at this.
Personally, i think it needs more high-level construct support, like
correctly implemented dynamic typing support.
The C part of D is great: it deals with low-level stuff like a champ,
but the Pythin part is not so good: high-level and abstract concepts
are still a tricky thing to do.

We need to get high ;-)

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 October 2011 13:31, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 25.10.2011 11:40, bearophile wrote:
>>>
>>> Gor Gyolchanyan:
>>>
>>>> D doesn't have a religion. D is an atheistic language.
>>>
>>> I doubt this. There was even an attempt to write a D Zen.
>>
>> That was by you, though, wasn't it? <g>
>> OTOH I agree that it's got an underlying philosophy. It was clearly
>> motivated by a love/hate relationship with C++.
>> "C++ done right" is still not too far wrong, although it seems that when
>> you do C++ correctly, it looks like some other languages as well...
>
> Except every other example of C++ done right leads to a managed runtime :)
> It's this "C++ done right" idea that sold me on D, except after spending
> some time, I wonder if D is quite sure about what it is?
> I bought in with the clear impression (and "C++ done right" certainly
> suggests) that it was a modernised systems programming language. Surely this
> is(/was?) the primary goal?
> That's definitely what appeals to me... it's compiled to machine code, has
> uninhibited hardware access, and that's the only niche that it cleanly fills
> which isn't occupied by any other languages.
> But I also see a lot of conversation about really high level features which
> are more realistically suited in something like C#. If these things fit
> neatly into D without compromise, then sure, why not. I love cool features!
> :)
> But is D making any compromise to that end? I haven't been following long
> enough to know...
> @Don: The only thing I really care about is that the compiler never chooses
> double intrinsically.. that will prove which way the language leans to me ;)