On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:03:26 -0700, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx>
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 09:58:02PM +0200, foobar wrote:
[...]
D has a lot of ad-hock features which make the language
needlessly large and complex. I'd strive to replace these with
better general purpose mechanisms.
My list:
* I'd start with getting rid of foreach completely. (not just
foreach_reverse). This is nothing more than a fancy function with
a delegate parameter.
I disagree. Having a dedicated foreach construct allows the compiler to
optimize away the delegate in certain cases. I wouldn't want to incur
the cost of creating and passing a delegate in something as simple as
foreach (i; 0..100), for example.
* enum - enum should be completely redesigned to only implement
what it's named after: enumerations.
Actually, I rather like the enum idiom of declaring compile-time
constants. Though it could do with a renaming to something more
befitting.
* version - this does not belong in a programming language. Git
is a much better solution.
This is an interesting idea. But using separate git branches just for
having versioned code seems a bit like total overkill... plus a
maintenance nightmare since you have to continue pull and merge changes
to every porting branch every time development happens. Whereas having
everything represented in source means that whoever writes a new feature
is also responsible for making it work with whatever versions are
currently out there. After-the-fact fixes are always painful.
* di files - a library should encapsulate all the info required
to use it. Java Jars, .Net assemblies and even old school; Pascal
units all solved this long ago.
I proposed a while ago that .di files should be replaced by something
better: omit ALL function bodies, template bodies, private members,
etc., and just keep the "real" public API in the human-readable part of
the file. Function and template bodies should be kept in as a binary
blob readable by the compiler (which obviously needs to know them
otherwise it won't be able to expand templates).
I have written code that will do just that. You can check it out here:
https://github.com/LightBender/dmd.git. It builds both the DRuntime and
Phobos perfectly, however, the Phobos makefile has not yet been updated to
generate DI files. However, Phobos uses the Druntime DI files for it's
build.
(Yes the binary blob can be reverse-engineered, but so can executables,
so it's a moot point. We're not trying to write cryptographic security
here, but it's nice to separate what the compiler needs to know vs. what
the user of a library needs to know.)
* This is a big one: get rid of *all* current compile time
special syntax. It should be replaced by a standard compilation
API and the compiler should be able to use plugins/addons. This
would reduce the size of the language to half of its current
size, maybe even more.
I have to disagree here. CTFE and compile-time features is a major
reason I like D. I argue rather that compile-time features should be
*improved*. The current situation is good, but not quite there yet. It
can be made better.
T
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
