The popularity of a language has no bearing on the quality of one of its features. Are there other message passing schemes you prefer?
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 22, 2012, at 5:53 AM, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 January 2012 15:18, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote: > On 2012-01-21 19:35, Manu wrote: > On 21 January 2012 18:09, Sean Kelly <s...@invisibleduck.org > <mailto:s...@invisibleduck.org>> wrote: > > I suggest checking out Erlang messaging, as it's the basis for this > design. Maybe then things will be a bit clearer. > > > Are you suggesting that erlang is a common language that all programmers > worth their paycheques are familiar with... and would also find intuitive? > I don't know if it's the most sensible API decision to model a design > off something so obscure, unless you suspect that D should appeal > primary to ex-erlang users? > > Just to re-iterate, I'm not arguing against the API or it's merits, it's > really cool, just that it shouldn't be the trivial one named receive(). > That name should be reserved for the most conventional API. > > Scala also uses a similar API as Erlang. > > Another super-mainstream language that everyone's familiar with :)