On 02/15/2012 09:17 PM, foobar wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 15:35:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/15/2012 03:30 PM, foobar wrote:
...
1. D templates are an enhanced version of C++ templates which are a poor
design. The problem stems IMO not from issues with OOP but rather with
the horrible idea of C++-like templates. Other languages have *much*
better solutions which integrate better.
[snip.]
Please elaborate. What kind of construct in a language that supports
OO solves the same set of problems D templates do and is unequivocally
a better design?
Lisp/scheme macros come to mind :)
=D. I actually thought about explicitly excluding those to get a more
meaningful answer. Using runtime code modification is cheating.
There are certainly ways to dynamically dispatch, expand and execute a
macro in lisp. If every D program was allowed to include a complete D
compiler, virtual template functions would work too. Can you point me to
an implementation in lisp that does this and is actually fast enough to
be considered for real work?
There are no issues AFAIK integrating
those with OOP, in fact the OOP features are implemented with macros
(CLOS).
You can use templates to implement a multiple-dispatch virtual function
system just fine. We are not talking about implementing OOP using
templates, but about using templated virtual methods.
Anyway, I don't see your point yet: You seem to think templates are
poorly designed because dynamic languages such as lisp are more flexible
than static languages such as D?
