On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 13:29:00 UTC, Wyatt wrote:
Unfortunately for your sanity, this isn't going to happen.
Similarly unlikely is multiple pointer types, which Walter has
repeatedly shot down. I'd suggest bringing it back up if and
when discussion of D3 begins in earnest.
D needs to start to focus on providing an assumption free system
level programming language that supports the kind of modelling
done for system level programming.
I am not sure if adding templates to D was a good idea, but now
that you have gone that route to such a large extent, you might
as well do it wholesale with better support for templated SYSTEM
programming would make sense. Make it your advantage. (including
deforesting/common subexpression substitution, constraints
systems etc)
As an application level programming language D stands no chance.
More crutches and special casing will not make D a system level
programming language. Neither does adding features designed for
other languages geared towards functional programming (which is
the antithesis of system level programming).
Yes, it can be done using a source to source upgrade tool.
No, attribute inference is not a silver bullet, it means changes
to libraries would silently break applications.
Yes, function signatures matters. Function signatures are
contracts, they need to be visually clear and the semantics have
to be easy to grok.
No, piling up low hanging fruits that are not yet ripe is not a
great way to do language design.
