Java binaries

[Paulo Pinto]

On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 08:38:00 UTC, rumbu wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 00:15:00 UTC, David Piepgrass 
> wrote:
>
>> How is "looking" like C# relevant? D looks 90% like C++ too, 
>> and D is still better. Certainly D is more powerful than C# on 
>> the whole.
>
> This is not a debate C# vs D. D is clearly more powerful than 
> C# with the current language semantics. But, once D will be 
> adapted to generate IL code, most of advantages will be lost. 
> You cannot have assembler code (may be IL code, but this can be 
> achieved using Emit in C# also), compile time reflection will 
> become redundant because of the intrinsic runtime reflection, 
> most of the templates will be constrained to generic types. In 
> a pottential D#, Phobos will not be used since you have the 
> .net framework. Also because of lack of some D features (like 
> readonly, mutiple interface implementation of the same method, 
> namespaces), more keywords will be needed to describe the code 
> and that will make it similar to C# more than expected.
>
> The irony is the fact that digging in the forum history, you 
> will find how D has evolved to be more and more C# like. Just 
> look at the recent changes, "alias" has evolved to the exact 
> syntax of "using" from C#.
>
> If the initial audience of D was the C++ programmer, I think 
> it's time to make a step forward and look also to lure the C# 
> programmer since the syntax is very similar. The most important 
> argument for the C# programmer to use D is the fact that D 
> compiles to native code. Offering something like D# to the C# 
> programmer is out of his interest, imho.

A problem here is that Microsoft is probably in the process of 
also offering standalone compilation for .NET languages as well.

Windows Phone 8 .NET applications get compiled to native code, 
they are not JITted.

They might as well decide to use the same solution instead of 
NGEN on the desktop.

--
Paulo