On Wednesday, 5 September 2012 at 06:34:01 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
When I said "dynamic typing" that was a bit misleading. It's
more the dynamic nature of Ruby I like. For example:
Yeah, that stuff can be good. Something I've been playing with in
D is a prototype inheritance class, that you can add methods to
dynamically. 9/10 times, I don't want this, but sometimes it is
just nice to have.
But, right now, the horribly broken @property is really ruining
it (and opCall being strangely designed in structs takes some fun
out, but it works pretty well with classes... which means you
have to use new at declaration, but meh, not a big deal).
Everything else is pretty doable though.
Granted you couldn't use it to extend regular D stuff, but UFCS
lets us sorta cheat on those anyway.
The comparable features in a static language would probably
AST-macros, annotations and similar features. If D had those
features then I probably wouldn't want dynamic typing that much.
Annotations are my last dream for D, just bog simple attach
metadata. My other wishes are pretty much little bug fixes.
