On 19/09/2010 11:49 PM, Lutger wrote:
Justin Johansson wrote:
On 19/09/2010 2:59 AM, Lutger wrote:
To me some of the most distinguishing aspects of D are:
- scale to complex as well as small programs: unlike C# and Java but perhaps
like python
- focus on early binding: this quote from David Griers is fitting: "Never put
off until run time what you can do at compile time." But also related is the
tendency to choose for a rich set of features, binding at 'language design
time'
- support a diversity of programming styles (like C++, python) and attempt to
integrate them
- support for features that help, and avoid designs that complicate
maintenance of large programs
- take advantage of existing C knowledge and codebase
- enable the programmer to make his own tradeoff between performance and
other quality criteria: this is true of many languages, but in D there is a
much wider space to choose from.
I think the salient point that all miss is that D does not
expand beyond the classical OO paradigm in any meaningful way.
I don't understand this statement, there are quite a few things in D that
support a different style of programming than OOP, such as:
- closures for higher-order programming
- pointers, systems programming features
- templates
- pure, transitive const and immutable
Do you think this is not meaningful? Or do you mean that what is actually needed
is a better OOP system than what D offers? What do you have in mind?
Some of these features you mention are very worthwhile but I mean that
that D does not offer any better OOP system amongst its contemporary
rivals.
To be well read on the subject of OOP models I can recommend this link
to a well-articulated paper by Bertrand Meyer:
http://se.ethz.ch/~meyer/publications/computer/taxonomy.pdf
Cheers
Justin Johansson
