On 19/12/2009 02:43, bearophile wrote:
Yigal Chripun:
To bearophile: you're mistaken on all counts -<
Yes, this happens every day here :-) I am too much ignorant still
about computer science to be able to discuss in this newsgroup in a
good enough way.
didn't mean to sound that harsh. sorry about that.
generics (when properly implemented) will provide the same
performance as templates.<
I was talking about a list of current language implementations.
Also, a VM is completely orthogonal to this. Ada ain't VM based, is
it?<
Ada doesn't use the generics how currently C# implement them.
Currently C# generics need a VM.
they were implemented for a VM based system but nothing in the *design*
itself inherently requires a VM. You keep talking about implementation
details while I try to discuss the design aspects and trad-offs. It's
obvious that we can't just copy-paste the .NET implementation to D.
Macros should be used for meta-programming and generics for
type-parameters.<
This can be true, but there's a lot of design to do to implement that
well. In Go there are no generics/templates nor macros. So generics
and macros can be added, as you say. In D2 there are templates and no
macros, so in D3 macros may be added but how can you design a D3
language where templates are restricted enough to become generics?
Unless D3 breaks a lot of backwards compatibility with D2 you will
end in D3 with templates + macros + language conventions that tell to
not use templates when macros can be used. Is this good enough?
Bye, bearophile
I don't know about D3, But even now in D2 there is confusion as to what
should be implemented with templates and what with CTFE.
