== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article > bearophile wrote: > > I see, you want a Swiss army knife language :o) > > > > Before choosing a design I suggest to look at how both Java and C#4 have > > done it, few random links about C#4: > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd264736%28VS.100%29.aspx > > http://blogs.msdn.com/cburrows/archive/2008/10/27/c-dynamic.aspx > > http://geekswithblogs.net/sdorman/archive/2008/11/16/c-4.0-dynamic-programming.aspx > I think the D approach is superior, because it offers many more ways of > doing things (it's implemented nearly completely as a library feature). > C# was forced to do it with a magic type because it doesn't support > templates.
Sometimes I feel like there should be a law similar to Greenspun's Law for language design: Any sufficiently long-lived language that promises to be "simpler" than C++ and D will grow to contain an ad-hoc, bug-ridden, informally specified, slow implementation of half of C++ and D.
