On Saturday, 13 July 2013 at 01:06:09 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
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.
Of course, .net demonstrates this very well... but do you really
expect most people to really be able to think that abstractly?
Syntax is meaningless but necessary... see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge.
