On 8/4/2012 8:12 AM, bearophile wrote:
My two post didn't imply to contain significant insights, they mostly contain a
single question.
Regarding the value of those two posts, they raises some questions, like: is D
fit just for video games, or is it good to write highly reliable programs too?
Are Ada programmers going to appreciate D?
The purposes of a language are important, because they must guide its design and
progressive development. If D is very good mostly for games, then probably it's
worth adding in Phobos things useful to write games, and the language designers
need to listen more to what people like Carmak ask to language designers. On the
other hand if in D future there is the creation of high integrity systems to
replace some of the current uses of Ada (and C-high-integrity profiles), then
it's worth considering how much useful some Ada features are, maybe for present
and future improvements of D. As I have shown Ada has several advantages over D
in that regard.
What's frustrating about your analyses is they fail to mention or account for
any features D has that make it more reliable than Ada. It's like you took a
list of Ada features and ticked off which ones were not in D, thus making it a
foregone conclusion that D can never be more than a pathetic subset of Ada.
For once I'd like you to take a list of D features and tick off those not in Ada
(or whatever other language du jour).
Like transitive immutability.
