On 29 March 2012 14:21, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 29/03/2012 13:22, Iain Buclaw a écrit : >> >> 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 implemented (hack of 3years outdated gdc).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. >> > > And that isn't really « new ».
Or very successful... however, success is in the eye of the beholder. :~) -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';