On 2012-01-05 00:31, F i L wrote:
bearophile wrote:
deadalnix:
I do agree with Andrei. Those are 2 orthogonals problems. The
optimization problem is clearly something that can be improved in D
ABI. Then, returning a tuple could be improved using thoses rules.
I agree.
The multiple retur value problem is syntaxic sugar. It may be
interesting, but not #1 priority.
I don't agree. In this moment of the D development it's still more
important to design D well than to squeeze every bit of performance
out of the reference implementation.
Example: currently vector operations have some small syntax (and maybe
semantic) problem, plus performance problems. I think fixing their
syntax is currently more important.
Fixing performance problems is possible to do later in GDC/LDC if the
language design is good, but fixing the syntax later is quite harder
to do.
Bye,
bearophile
+1 to this. Performance is key to D's success of course, but what will
attract more developers is clean and bug free aesthetics. DMD already
outperforms MS/Mono C# in all of my modest benchmarks. GDC and LDC much
more so.
The first two things that really made me want to use D where reading
about it's built-in Arrays and Unittests. Multiple return syntax could
only make D feel more hip. A complaint I've heard before is how C-like D
tries to be with it's library naming (eg, std.writeln vs
Console.WriteLine), so I don't think tradition or heritage are good ways
to increase support. While D's naming seems natural enough to me or
anyone who's written C/C++ code, from an outside perspective you might
wounder why there was module dealing with venereal disease.
I know you D developers, have a lot on your plates. Thank you all.
C#, Java and similar language doesn't support free functions like D
does. Then they have to resort to "hacks" like static methods, i.e.
Console.WriteLine.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
