On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 10:44:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/12/2016 1:41 AM, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
And to be frank D's symbol resolution isn't suitable for
programming-in-the-large
either.
Explain.
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/skqcudmkvqtejmofx...@forum.dlang.org
Frictionless masses are useful for teaching engineering, but
are not useful in the real world, which tends to be complicated
and dirty, just like useful programming languages.
Languages sometimes get complicated and dirty when they are
"patched up" with the requirement that they should not break
existing code. C++ and Objective-C are such languages, and the
source is both C and lack of initial design considerations.
However, your claim that Prolog has not been useful in the real
world is silly. You are making some unstated assumptions about
what «useful» means. There are plenty of expert-systems based
upon Prolog.
There are plenty of problems that would be much easier to solve
in Prolog than in D, and vice versa.
I asked for one feature originating in Prolog that made its way
into mainstream languages.
No you didn't. Unification is Prolog's main feature. C++ template
matching uses unification.
You dismissed C++'s enormous influence in getting languages to
adopt OOP
Sure, _anyone_ with any kind of education in computing since the
80s would have learned what OO was way before C++ got mainstream
around 1990.
C++ got OO into mainstream application development, that's
different. There were plenty of OO languages around before that
event.
