On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:38:43 -0400, retard <r...@tard.com.invalid> wrote:
Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:27 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:36:32 -0400, retard <r...@tard.com.invalid> wrote:
Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:22:09 -0400, bearophile wrote:
Jesse Phillips:
This is exactly how it should be marketed. It has the productivity of
Python, other dynamic languages, with the performance and power of a
natively compiled language.
Most programmers are able to see that's very false, today.
The main and maybe only advantage of D over C# is that it's
multi-platform. But today the Web is very important, and D can't be
used in browers.
I don't find it surprising that people here agree, when one is bashing
other languages. However, please consider that C# is *higher* level
language than D and that means it by definition has better portability
to multiple platforms. You already have a C# virtual machine for all
major operating systems. C# even runs on a browser
(silverlight/moonlight).
How is C# higher level than D?
FWIW, I was talking about the language, not its implementation.
So was I. Hence my dismissing the library argument because it's not the
language's fault.
Does C#
have access to inline assembler? Agreed, it doesn't provide many new high
level features compared to D, but it doesn't have all the interfaces with
raw metal. That makes it higher level language in my book. It's less
dependent on the hardware platform.
You mean, C# doesn't provide access to the lower level constructs? IMO D
is at the same level even if it does provide inline assembler. The simple
fact is, you don't *have* to use low level features of D, you can stick to
the C#-level constructs. Hell, you can even write full useful programs in
D without ever touching a pointer or inline assembler.
-Steve
