On Thursday, 1 November 2012 at 19:44:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 08:19:56PM +0100, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Thursday, 1 November 2012 at 18:06:21 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
[...]
>A more interesting comment is this one:
>
>"But the real problem here is that in order to achieve even
>that,
>the complexity and amount of concepts you have to deal with in
>C++11 is mind boggling."
>
>The same is true in D. Well-written D code often does look
>rather
>elegant, but the amount of understanding needed to write
>beautiful
>D code is staggering.
I have to agree having to deal with lots of concepts.
I don't see it as a problem, unless one is a programmer of the
drone
persuasion. Many of D's concepts are liberatingly powerful, and
very
potent in combination.
On the other hand, except for the programming drones, most D
concepts are also available in most mainstream languages.
[...]
If we want to minimize the number of concepts, we should
program using
Lambda calculus. ;-) We already have lambda-syntax for
delegates, after
all. Now just restrict all statements to only lambda
expressions, get
rid of difficult concepts like arithmetic operators, variables
and
imperative programming, and we have a winner on our hands.
Seriously, though, imagining that one can program effectively
without
learning new concepts is a preposterous proposition to me. I
just don't
understand the unwillingness to learn.
T
It is not the unwillingness to learn, rather the standard HR way
of getting replaceable programming drones in most enterprises.
This was already discussed a few times.
--
Paulo
