On 11/12/2010 13:53, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
I guess what I liked about it (and Ruby) is that I see everything is
very consistent and nice to my eyes. I never squeeze my brian to
understand a piece of code, nor I had to deal with __some__strange
variable names, or even __keywords.
Code is read many more times than it is written and so it is of huge
important that code is as readable as possible. Of course this is a
subjective matter, but I don't understand why some people think __traits
or __gshared are ok. So what if those are compiler extensions or
whatever? I don't want to stop thinking about those details of a
programming language when I'm dealing with another problem. When I read
Ruby code I feel like I'm reading an English textbook (better, a poem
:-P), while why I read other languages I feel I'm reading... well, a
programming language. And my head is so much better at reading text than
reading machine code.
Then, other things in D like properties for which you do ++ don't work
or such corner cases doesn't happen in Ruby. It's consistent. Once Ruby
defines something, it does it well, not just half through it.
I see what with mean with consistency, and I agree with that. Especially
in regards to criticism of D, yeah, there is a lot of stuff I think that
could be simplified, removed, made consistent, cleaned, generalized, etc..
But I would never trade those downsides for a language with dynamic
typing, not even close! And this regardless of whether the language is
systems programmings (like D), or not (like Java).
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
