D as a betterC a game changer ?

[Dan Partelly]

On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 09:39:22 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>
> I think stating it that way implies some kind of 
> psychopathology ;-)
>
> It would be better, and more accurate, to state that 'The D 
> personality has had to evolve over a long period of time'.
>


Well, C++ had to evolve over a very long period of time, and 
maintain compatibility with C. No other programming language had 
to deal with technical and social issues C++ had to deal with.

By comparison, D is young, and had the advantage it had no 
constrains to be compatible (language wise) with another 
language. Evolution time is not an excuse to a mixed personality 
(even if perceived). For all it's evolution time and mistakes and 
idiotic size of the language to pay for C's sins and omissions I 
do not see C++ as mixed personality. I never did. It evolved 
consistently. Also, another language, Ada went through 1 standard 
and 3 major revisions in almost 35 years and retained it's 
personality basically unchanged. Too bad it was designed with a  
Wirthian syntax, which IMO was one of the factors it doomed it.

D went GC, but no quite mandatory GC, also not quite able to run 
its in entirety without GC, then in it's old age, went for 
cosmetic surgery to look like slim and sexy miss C. Much like a 
beautiful and capricious women with commitment issues and a fear 
of aging which went through 5 husbands. And it all started with a 
GC and several wrong defaults ....


>
> IMHO..What will help the cause, in terms of keeping D as a 
> 'modern' programming language, is the willingness of its 
> designers and its community to make and embrace 'breaking 
> changes' ... for example, making @safe the default, instead of 
> @system.

God knows. All "x" users of D would scream bloody murder, imo.