Mike Hearn: >With a few minor improvements (eg namespace support) that'd save a lot of >time.<
This change to D language is not planned. You can explain why you think namespace support is useful (and you can explain those other minor improvements too). >- Integration of a compiler with our in-house build system (proprietary). If >it's GCC based that's better.< There's a D compiled based on GCC, but at the moment the best D1 compiler is LDC, based on LLVM, especially if you care for top performance of the binary. >If it works similar to the ones we use for C++ that's better:< I hope D will do better here :-) But it will take time. >D is a very feature rich language even compared to C++.< But usually D features are designed to be safer, higher level, less tricky and more handy, and sometimes slower. Go designers have removed almost everything, so when you use Go you don't need a restrictive style guide like Google C++ one that forbids people to use several language features :-) > - By default emacs/vim at google import customizations for our environment, > integrating a d-mode with that would be nice.< This is something that probably needs to be done regardless possible D usage at Google. >I haven't tried binding stuff into D, although given that it's got some C/C++ >compatibility it's way ahead of Python and Java already.< C compatibility of D is good. C++ compatibility is currently limited by design. If Google hires Walter he may use 50% of his free time developing D2 (as Guido has 50% for Python itself, and 50% developing Python code). Bye, bearophile
