Does D have too many features?

Jacob Carlborg doob at me.com
Sun Apr 29 07:40:37 PDT 2012


On 2012-04-28 20:47, Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei and I had a fun discussion last night about this question. The
> idea was which features in D are redundant and/or do not add significant
> value?
>
> A couple already agreed upon ones are typedef and the cfloat, cdouble
> and creal types.
>
> What's your list?

* Some of the built-in properties could probably be move to a library 
solution, specially now when we have UFCS.

* The with-statement isn't particular useful. Although I've started to 
use it in one of my projects just so I don't have to use fully qualified 
enum names.

* D embedded in HTML (don't know if this is still supported)

* Multiple syntax for wysiwyg strings. I think the r"" syntax can be remove.

* Do-while loops, how useful are those actually?

Then I think some features could be replaced with library solutions if D 
got some other features. For example:

* foreach(_reverse)
* synchronized

These could probably be removed in favor of library solutions.

void foreach (T)(T[] arr, void delegate (ref T) dg)
{
     for (size_t i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
         dg(arr[i]);
}

foreach ([1, 2, 3, 4], (i)  { writeln(i); });

The above already works today. If we can a bit syntax sugar for 
delegates and inlinable delegates we could have this:

foreach ([1, 2, 3, 4] ; i) {
     writeln(i);
}

The above syntax would be very useful in other cases as well.

The same could be done for "synchronized" as well. Might even be 
possible to remove the for-statement and just have "while" left.

I we want get even more wild and crazy I think Scala's solution for 
operator overloading looks really good. But that would require several 
other features to work. Like:

* Everything is an object (might not be needed with UFCS)
* Everything is a method call on an object
* Infix notation for calling any method taking one argument
* Basically any symbol is allowed in method names

That is:

1 + 2
foo bar foo_bar

Would be translated to:

1.+(2)
foo.bar(foo_bar)

That is a very general way to handle operators and let the user create 
new operators, not just overloading existing ones.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list