I just wrote a DIP aimed at improving slicing and range
construction syntax while maintaining backwards compatibility,
and I'd like to hear your opinions!
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP58
It can be thought of as an elaboration on the approach discussed
here:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.551.1365290408.4724.digitalmars-d-le...@puremagic.com
And an alternative to the approach discussed here:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/upzdamhmxrrlsexgc...@forum.dlang.org#post-ncwqaixkgbgycybvpkgj:40forum.dlang.org
I think the issue of appealing to numerical programmers is worth
some attention because there's a distinct niche that D is
frustratingly close to filling. In my field, researchers will
often write scripts in a dynamic language, publish, iterate, and
eventually re-write their software in C++ and release it as a
library. The re-writing step is a large time investment, but
it's important because
- Dynamic languages are either slow (MATLAB/Python/R) or
immature (Julia).
- Other researchers may prefer another dynamic language, but
every relevant dynamic language can interface with native
libraries.
D already has the speed and modeling power of C++, GC for clean
API design, and reflection for automatic bindings, but it's
missing a few key features required to make something like NumPy
or the Julia standard library possible in D. I believe DIP58
provides those features, and accepting DIP58 will make D a
competitive alternative to the prototype/test/rewrite/release
cycle.
On another note, I'm pretty new to D and the community, so let me
know if there's any protocol I should follow with respect to DIPs
and I'll get on it!
Cheers,
Mason
