On 29 March 2012 11:57, ezdiy <eez...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 29 March 2012 at 10:49:45 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >> >> Le 29/03/2012 11:47, ezdiy a écrit : >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> D syntax being C-ish one is great for oldschool class of programmers >>> coming C/C++/Java/C# backgrounds, and although it's quite conscise one >>> compared to, eg. javas, it's still much on the overly verbose side for >>> some people (ie. at least for me :) >>> >>> The question is, how one would go around to successfully implement an >>> alternative modern syntax to "fix" this. Are there some attempts out >>> there? >>> >> >> This isn't a problem. Compare how successful >> C/C++/Java/C#/PHP/Javascript/Go/Objective-C/ActionScript are compared to >> languages with « quite concise » syntax. This is a no match. >> >> This style has proven to be readable, convenient and many programmers are >> used to it. If you want to change that, you don't only need to prove that >> another syntax is better, but also that it is THAT MUCH BETTER that changing >> what everybody is used worth it. This sounds difficult to me. > > > I'm not here to start flame about old vs new, use irc for that :) > > Speaking to the point: Delight seems as a nice concept, however it's awfully > implemented (hack of 3years outdated gdc). Such hacks *must* be implemented > as code translators for reasons you've cited. Ie i can just generate code > for people who refuse to learn something new.
Sounds like literate programming to me. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
