"retard" <r...@tard.com.invalid> wrote in message news:i4r1pk$rm...@digitalmars.com... > Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:31:16 -0700, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >> But still, being able to consistently match C++ at what it's good at and >> C# and Java at what they're good at in one language is big, and I really >> don't think that we're there yet. I don't know how efficient we are in >> comparison to C++, but I expect that there are a number of areas which >> need improvement (things like inlining, the garbage collector, etc.) if >> we want the average D program to match the average C++ program for >> efficiency. And we definitely don't match Java and C# for ease of use >> and maintainability at this point, but most of that is simply an issue >> of libraries and tools, both of which are being worked on. So, we're >> getting there, but I don't think that we're there yet. And certainly, >> once we do get there, there's no reason to stay only "on par" with them. >> We should always be looking to improve D and its libraries and tools. > > Should D also look more academic than Haskell, F#, Scala, DDC, Clojure, > BitC, Factor, and Ur/Web ?
"More academic"? No, D tries to stick to goals that are actually *good* ones ;) That's kinda like asking if it should try to be more obfuscated than brainfuck, or try to have less enterprise-level library support than Logo.