On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:51:21PM -0700, Brad Roberts wrote: > On 7/12/13 1:46 PM, ixid wrote: [...] > >It seems a pity that D is achieving such power and elegance in some > >areas while failing to take on some of the syntactic beauty that is > >within reach. The ultimate language would look something like D > >crossed with Go in my eyes. It would be interesting if someone were > >able to make a D subset that showed what it could look like. There is > >significant value to being easy to read and write, making the > >language naturally more appealing for users just as speed makes > >applications much more attractive to users. > > One person's beauty is another person's ugly. This is an area that > reasonable people are going to disagree on. You're feeling on their > reasons is rather dismissive.
I find this fixation on syntax rather strange. As long as the syntax is not *too* ugly (*cough*C++ templates*cough*) isn't the *semantics* more important? A pretty language that has limited expressiveness is useless; a powerful language that's a bit ugly in syntax isn't any less powerful because of it. T -- There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
