Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:00:33 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > 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: >> 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.
Being a higher level language isn't some positive optimum. I guess part of the reason you disagree is that you take everything personally if someone is critical towards D. My personal opinion is that D is in many cases a *better* language than C# and one of the reasons is that it's a lower level language. You can find one definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language > You know, people who like D come to this newsgroup for suggestions, > answers, and discussion... about D! > > So you are surprised when people here post positive things about D? You > know, you are right. We're all brainwashed, and I think you just saved > us. The logic often goes: if (post.sender == "retard" && post.criticizes("D")) poster.sender.isWrong = true; No matter what I say, I'm always wrong. Even quotes from encyclopedias or research papers are more wrong when I share them.