Slashdot Log In
The D Language Progresses
Posted by
michael
on Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:06 AM
from the lots-of-letters-left dept.
from the lots-of-letters-left dept.
xsniper writes "D made its debut here on Slashdot in August 2001. Since then, many new features have been implemented, to include: operator overloading and slew of additional functionalities. It was featured as a cover story for the February 2002 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal, and has been ported to the UNIX environment. I encourage programmers to revisit the specs to see how Walter Bright has addressed their concerns. A copy of the compiler is also available for testing. I'm sure some would be surprised by the achievements made thus far."
Related Stories
[+]
The D Programming Language, Version 1.0 570 comments
penguinblotter writes in a journal article: "Soon, Walter Bright is scheduled to release version 1.0 of the D Programming Language. D is a systems programming language. Its focus is on combining the power and high performance of C and C++ with the programmer productivity of modern languages like Ruby and Python. Special attention is given to the needs of quality assurance, documentation, management, portability and reliability. D has appeared on Slashdot a few times before, and Walter has continued to add more and more features. Most Slashdot community comments in these articles have been offered on feature X or spec Y without reading through the extensive D newsgroup archives. It has been here over the past seven years where extremely gifted and experienced programmers hashed out discussions and arrived at excellent implementations of all the ideas discussed." Read on for the rest of penguinblotter's writeup.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The D Language Progresses
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 526 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
What is D? (Score:5, Informative)
D is a general purpose systems and applications programming language. It is a higher level language than C++, but retains the ability to write high performance code and interface directly with the operating system API's and with hardware. D is well suited to writing medium to large scale million line programs with teams of developers. D is easy to learn, provides many capabilities to aid the programmer, and is well suited to aggressive compiler optimization technology.
D is not a scripting language, nor an interpreted language. It doesn't come with a VM, a religion, or an overriding philosophy. It's a practical language for practical programmers who need to get the job done quickly, reliably, and leave behind maintainable, easy to understand code.
D is the culmination of decades of experience implementing compilers for many diverse languages, and attempting to construct large projects using those languages. D draws inspiration from those other languages (most especially C++) and tempers it with experience and real world practicality.
Why D?
Why, indeed. Who needs another programming language?
The software industry has come a long way since the C language was invented. Many new concepts were added to the language with C++, but backwards compatibility with C was maintained, including compatibility with nearly all the weaknesses of the original design. There have been many attempts to fix those weaknesses, but the compatibility issue frustrates it. Meanwhile, both C and C++ undergo a constant accretion of new features. These new features must be carefully fitted into the existing structure without requiring rewriting old code. The end result is very complicated - the C standard is nearly 500 pages, and the C++ standard is about 750 pages! The reality of the C++ compiler business is that few compilers effectively implement the entire standard.
C++ programmers tend to program in particular islands of the language, i.e. getting very proficient using certain features while avoiding other feature sets. While the code is portable from compiler to compiler, it can be hard to port it from programmer to programmer. A great strength of C++ is that it can support many radically different styles of programming - but in long term use, the overlapping and contradictory styles are a hindrance.
It's frustrating that such a powerful language does not do basic things like resizing arrays and concatenating strings. Yes, C++ does provide the meta programming ability to implement resizable arrays and strings like the vector type in the STL. Such fundamental features, however, ought to be part of the language. Can the power and capability of C++ be extracted, redesigned, and recast into a language that is simple, orthogonal, and practical? Can it all be put into a package that is easy for compiler writers to correctly implement, and which enables compilers to efficiently generate aggressively optimized code?
Modern compiler technology has progressed to the point where language features for the purpose of compensating for primitive compiler technology can be omitted. (An example of this would be the 'register' keyword in C, a more subtle example is the macro preprocessor in C.) We can rely on modern compiler optimization technology to not need language features necessary to get acceptable code quality out of primitive compilers.
D aims to reduce software development costs by at least 10% by adding in proven productivity enhancing features and by adjusting language features so that common, time-consuming bugs are eliminated from the start.
Re:What is D? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is D? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I won't dare disagree with you on C, C++ is not simple! Perhaps you should read a little more about it to understand. Things I personally object to in C++ are:
- The multiple casting notations: ( type ), foo _case< type >
- Excessively arcane template system
- Every design-of-syntax error listed in the D site's overview
- Retarded naming scheme, small size, and wierd design of standard library. The damn thing's almost useless.
So basically, C++ is anything but simple. It's a big, bloated monster and is loaded with nasty cruft.One final bitch: I want the person pulled into the street and shot who was responsible for the font used in the Stroustrup C++ book's code examples. Who the hell writes code in an italic, proportional, serif font?! The only thing more painful than programming in C++ is reading about programming in C++.
Re:What is D? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>>>>>>
I love the C++ STL naming scheme. Nice and concise, but still clear and memorable. Java and many other languages suffer far too much from name bloat. And the C++ STL is probably one of the last things a C++ programmer really understands, and it can be years before people truely appreciate the power of the STL.
Re:What is D? (Score:4, Funny)
Sounds an awful lot like C++ to me. C++ is a mish-mash of C, and everything that entails, object oriented programming constructs, and a standard library that is often quite functional in nature. The syntax is convoluted (due in no small part to templates) and the compilers are convoluted beyond human reason.
Don't get me wrong, I love C++'s sheer semantic flexibility, but if you've ever done anything in C#, Java, or Python, it becomes clear just how long it takes to get stuff done in C++. (and it becomes apparent how annoying the Java OOP obsession can be
Re:What is D? (Score:5, Funny)
You know, the above little blurb had me going until this statement. For Chrissake, why don't you just prefix it with "The following marketing fluff statement was divined specifically so non-technical, pointy-haired managers could force yet another programming language on already overworked developers." I would have expected more from computer scientists than this. How is the world can you design a programming language, assume that it will automatically meet my needs, then assume that it will reduce my costs for development, which are completely unknown to you? I'm afraid in this case, ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and not me.
I mean, you'll never hear (nor have you heard in the past) Bjarne claiming that C++ will solve your development ills. Hell, I don't even think Microsoft has claimed that C# will reduce your costs by a specific amount.
Wait...what did you say? The D programming language will get me laid? Not laid off? Where's that compiler again...?
Where is Algol68? (Score:4, Interesting)
Algol68 does all the things claimed for D, and more (Including support for threads). Designed and tested 30 years ago, it only died because it was not invented by IBM, who, at that time, were the power that M$ is today. And the books about it were printed in decent fonts :->
Come on all ye compiler-writers, and give us an Algol68 compiler (preferably will support for NetBSD on Sparc :-)
Re:What is D? (Score:4, Insightful)
If longevity of a language means much, then both Cobol and BASIC (Darmouth '66) must be even more fantastic.
Seriously, C is a powerful language, but I think its longevity relates more to the difficulty in porting legacy code than as a triumph in itself
Michael
Re:What is D? (Score:5, Informative)
Whenever I think about language utility I always think of the gallery of CSS descramblers [cmu.edu]. Here we see a CSS descrambler in C that is 434 bytes long and runs at better than 10 times the speed of the next smallest implementation (472 bytes of perl code).
Is there another general purpose language around that can solve this problem with equivalent portions of simplicity and performance?
I think incompatability, lack of design work and other general language misuse are more to blame for problems in most C code than the language itself. Nearly any language can be used successfully and effectively and nearly any language can be abused.
Will C be the most widely used programming language for the next 20 years? Hopefully not. Will C continue to be used effectively in the next 20 years when appropriate? Hopefully so.
Re:What is D? (Score:4, Funny)
You're right, this is a model of clarity and good programming:
#define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])
unsigned char x[5],y,s[2048];main(n){for(read(0,x,5);read(0,s,n
Shouldn't it be 'E'? (Score:4, Funny)
Of course not (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shouldn't it be 'E'? (Score:5, Funny)
Language overloading... (Score:3, Interesting)
They could have saved themselves the trouble and waited for Microsoft to implement C# (which is lightyears ahead of D as far as implementation goes).
This is a life-saver! (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now ... (Score:5, Funny)
Boss: "D?" What happened to C? Or that other one, C++, that you're always harping about?
Me: Well, D is a further refinement of C++, and
Boss: Weren't you just telling me that "J" language was supposed to be the next big thing? Isn't J further along than D?
Me: Yes and no
Boss: And if only want to make small changes, is a "+" higher than a "#"?
[suddenly, a shot rang out]
So Is Their Motto... (Score:3, Funny)
almost up my alley.. (Score:5, Funny)
Contracts (Score:4, Informative)
And of course, generics [digitalmars.com].
Now all it needs is some community support and ECMA goodness. I think it has a good chance of being widely used.
A Religion (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a religion? Neither was C. Neither was Java. Neither was C++. Neither was vi. Neither was Emacs. I think we all know where this is going and that that statement should be considered pure FUD. And a new language covered in FUD is not a good thing, even if it look like a good thing(tm).
Blasphemer!! (Score:4, Funny)
EMACS= Emacs Makes A Computer run Slow. Didn't they teach you that in seminary!
VIM is the one true religion grrr editor because its just an editor and does not conflict with the way unix does things.
May you burn in the utmost pits of hell for your statement of such blashpemic purporations.
no value classes == no go (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason why C++ is so popular nowadays for numerical, engineering, graphics, and scientific applications is that it supports value classes: classes allocated on the stack, passed around by copying, and represented without any additional overhead. They are used for things like points, points with small coordinate ranges, vectors, 3D rotation matrixes, rectangles, and lots of other types. I don't believe any systems or applications language for which efficiency is a consideration can do without them.
Why the creators of D think that providing value classes is a problem, I don't understand. Sure, C++ fell all over itself with initializers, but lots of other languages have managed just fine. Pascal has value classes, and so does C#. JavaGrande recognized the lack of value classes as one of the biggest deficiencies in the Java language.
And it's not something a compiler can just optimize automatically, no matter how good it is: the use of value classes has user visible effects on interfaces and data structures.
Re:no value classes == no go (Score:4, Interesting)
`Value classes' as you term them, amazingly complicate the language; they're one of the reasons that C++ is such a ball of hair.
If you've got GC, then a reference-only design is a lot simpler. Whether this results in a lot of inefficiency is something of a controversial (in general; I guess that in fields such as embedded/real-time systems systems, perhaps less so).
However it's clear that many people think that `value classes' are `needed for efficiency,' so arguably they were necessary simply to convince a skeptical and conservative (in the real sense, not the political sense!) audience to switch to C++.
Thou shalt use objective-C (Score:4, Interesting)
D Language from early 80's (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, his original D compiler was written in BASIC, which he ran interpreted, so compilation was slow. In order to speed up the interpreter, he used the sort of "source code compression" that is illustrated at Chuck's Power Koding [wpi.edu] - removing any unnecessary spaces, using long source lines and having as few actual lines as possible.
(This kind of ancient interpreter didn't use byte codes - if you looped ten times, you'd parse the loop's source code ten times!)
We suggested that he rewrite his D compiler in D so he could get it to compile faster. He decided to do that, and worked really hard at it but got it working after some time.
As a complication he improved the language, but it meant that his old compiler wouldn't compile the newer kind of D code. I think what he did was make two revisions of the D-written compiler, one written in the old syntax that would understand the new, but could be compiled by the BASIC version and then an update that was written in the new D that could compile itself.
It was a sort of mix of Pascal but with lots of convenient stuff like BASIC string handling mixed in. I don't think the language would have made any computer scientists happy - D was designed to suit Mike's personal style.
He used it at first to write an Adventure-style game (a text adventure) that he and another friend designed.
Later he wrote a text-adventure compiler, where he could write a specification file for a text adventure, process it, and an executable file for a text adventure would be generated.
He didn't have to get a real summer job because he was selling these generated games to game software publishers!
Mike was an amazing programmer. He taught me a lot of what I knew about C and x86 assembly early on.
This was all on 640 kb 8088 DOS PC's that were outfitted with whizzy 10 MB hard drives. The students in the computational physics lab were expected to use the hard drives only during class, and to store their personal files on floppy when we weren't actively working at the PC's.
So his D language compiler would fit on a floppy. The old 5 1/4" inch kind, that really flopped. I think they stored 360kb.
I wonder whether we would all be better off if programmers designed their own personal languages just to suit their own personal styles. Yes, there would be portability problems but wouldn't we be more productive?
I got my own chance to hack a whacky compiler. This was a team effort though and I was just a contributor. Star Sapphire Common Lisp [webweasel.com] manages to run a complete common lisp environment with MicroEmacs on a 640kb DOS 8088 PC.
The way it does that is by swapping to an 8 MB backing store file. But the 8088 doesn't have an MMU, you say? That's right - we operated the virtual memory manually, by writing C code that would explicitly get or put each lisp cons from or into the VM system with a function call.
It made it ... interesting ... to operate on complicated data structures. I designed the implementation of the lisp scoping rules, among other things.
Oh yeah, and I was the source code control system and project manager. We didn't have a network - networks were way too expensive in 1986. What I did was wait until late when all the other programmers went home, copy the changes off all their machines onto floppy, integrate them on one machine and then copy the new release onto everyone's PC.
Kids these days. Don't know when ya got it good.
Quote from Dilbert (Score:4, Funny)
Dilbert: No! C is not the grade of the project. It's the programming language I'll use on it.
PHB: (After a few seconds) OK. But why don't you program at least with B?
The evolution of languages (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the purpose of creating entirely new languages? Is a new language even entirely new, or is it an evolution of older languages incorporating new concepts and methodologies? Or is the creation of a new language just a way of leaving a mark? Or, even worse, is it a manifestation of that damnable desire to start from scratch every time? (I'm afflicted by it... most coders I know are afflicted by it...)
Here's what I'd like to know, in my limited knowledge of languages: What languages out there are truly modular? Are there any languages that encompass basic logic principles and which are then able to be augmented by blackboxed modules? So, if you had a language that needed string concatenation, you could whip up a string concatenation module that would then become part of the language.
Now, I'm walking a semantic line here, because you can presumably do all that by writing header files, includes, classes, etc. that contain new logic within the structure of the language. But what I mean is a language that by its nature is abstracted and modular, even to the point where the syntax of, say, control structures could be modified in a module?
And, if the answer to my question is "Well, hell, you can do that in C!" then why do we need to bother writing a new language? Is it just to keep things fresh and interesting?
It just seems that with all the many languages I've learned and used, there's very little that I can think of that one language can do that another language can't. Where doing something in one language is harder than in another because the structure of the language makes it awkward, maybe that points to a language that needs to be made obsolete.
I guess the root question I'm asking is: Are there any truly novel languages out there, or are they all just variations on a common theme, with shared shortcomings and much duplication of effort?
Be gentle. :)
Re:The evolution of languages (Score:5, Interesting)
a new programming language:
(1) A new model of computation or machine. Lisp,
Prolog, Algol, Forth, SNOBOL, ML, BLISS-32,
APL, SETL, Parallation Lisp, Smalltalk, Self
are examples.
(2) A new kind of progamming methodology or
application domain. Bourne/Korn shell, Perl,
C++, Eiffel, Sather, Logo, PHP are examples.
(3) Incremental improvement derived from
practical experience. Java, C#, Kylix/Delphi,
Visual Basic, Haskell, D are examples.
Each of these can make serious contributions to
the state of the art. The innovations of the
first type are more fundamental, more profound,
but also more academic in nature, and take some
time to provide practical improvements in the
art of practice. Those of the second and third
kind can provide more immediate and accessible
improvements in reliability, productivity, and
feasibility of practical development.
Yes, there is a tendency to create vanity
languages. If D ever was that, it has progressed
far beyond, if a half-hour's reading has not
deceived me regarding it's design. Whether it's
implementation has or will ever have progressed
to the point where it can fulfill its potential
as an innovation of the third kind... I just don't
know.
The Bell Labs answer (Score:5, Funny)
There's an axiom at Bell Labs (where C and C++ came from, for those who don't know):
Some languages are designed to solve a problem. Others are designed to prove a point.
Re:The evolution of languages (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The evolution of languages (Score:4, Informative)
Lisp.
Now, I'm walking a semantic line here, because you can presumably do all that by writing header files, includes, classes, etc. that contain new logic within the structure of the language. But what I mean is a language that by its nature is abstracted and modular, even to the point where the syntax of, say, control structures could be modified in a module?
Lisp.
I guess the root question I'm asking is: Are there any truly novel languages out there,
Lisp.
or are they all just variations on a common theme, with shared shortcomings and much duplication of effort?
Everything else.
D is too close to Java (Score:4, Insightful)
C++ needs an overhaul; the cruft has gotten too thick. But, sadly, D isn't it.
Walter Bright is a good compiler writer; he did the Zortech C++ compiler, years ago. So D is not a paper language.
D == Java? (Score:5, Interesting)
- No multiple inheritance
- All objects accessed by reference on the heap
- Not source-compatible with C
- No namespaces
- All member functions are virtual (unless the compiler figures out they don't have to be)
So basically, we'll still need C++ for a bunch of things. At least it's got templates, I guess.Also, it's a bit funny that the preprocessor is mentioned twice under "Features to Drop." This guy must really hate the preprocessor. :)
D# (Score:4, Funny)
REDMOND, WA 10:39PM PST - Microsoft Corp is pleased to announce our new state of the art language, D# . Additionaly, Microsoft is anouncing our own VM which will run regular D code plus our own set of WDE (Windows D Extensions) which will improve the usability of D and decrease development times. Microsoft corp would like to stress that there will be a D-VM for other platforms soon (within 20-30 years).
You kids these days... (Score:4, Funny)
Why back in my day, I would write b++ code on my 25lb laptop while trudging through the snow on my way to the coal mine (uphill both ways). And I thought I had it easy! My dad used to 'program' with oscilloscopes and huge racks of patch cables (actually thats true) when punch cards came out he thought that was the best method that would be for a while... All you young curmudgeons with your D this and visual that and open source hullabaloo. Twenty three skidoo to all of you!
Menage Theory (Score:5, Funny)
C++ was alone for the night when Eiffel stopped by, noticing C++ was by itself, "just for a few drinks". Well, things started to get out of hand and just then Java walks in. Tense moment. Awkward silence. But to C++'s relief, Java joins in.
Well, as luck would have it, Java gets pregnant but the three of them have found they really enjoy each other's company, they balance each other out in certain areas, so they buck convention and all move in together and raise the kid under an "alternative" family, and hey, there's nothing wrong with that. They call their kid D, and while he's still young and has a lot to learn, he's got features, interfaces, delegates and assertions built in. He might just turn out all right after all.
Watch for the movie, starring Richard Gere as C++ (he's older and has a rumored past, but he'll give the rest of the case a few pointers), Catherine Zeta Jones as Java, and Renee Zellweger as Eiffel (she's hot, but underappreciated). Lil' Bow Wow will guest star as D.
I don't see it being used (Score:3, Insightful)
- C++ programmers tend to program in particular islands of the language, i.e. getting very proficient using certain features while avoiding other feature sets.
- A great strength of C++ is that it can support many radically different styles of programming - but in long term use, the overlapping and contradictory styles are a hindrance.
- It doesn't come with a VM, a religion, or an overriding philosophy.
- D aims to reduce software development costs by at least 10% by adding in proven productivity enhancing features and by adjusting language features so that common, time-consuming bugs are eliminated from the start.
The first two I am not able to counter at all - I simply don't have the experience. I don't know if he does, either, so I don't buy it. The last... why 10%? Why not 11%, 15%, or 11.38%? It just seems silly.As for philosophy, every language has a philosophy. D adheres to the object oriented paradigm - that's a philosophy. Beyond that, it seems to me that it tries to attain simplicity in use while trying to force good programming standards. That's most definitely a philosopy.
I've read a bit about the language itself, and I am interested in the unittest and contracts in particular. Those features would be great additions to any language, I think.
But I don't see a need for the language itself. It seems like Walter Bright looked at the current OO languages and decided they weren't adequate for his needs. So he designed and implemented his own. This is commendable, but I don't see the result as being different enough from the other available OO languages to make any sort of switch or adoption advantageous.
I think that languages get adopted widely when they offer something that other languages can't do, or do very poorly. Fortran allowed an abstraction higher than assembley. C++ allowed object oriented design using notation many people were familiar with and at high speeds. Perl allowed easy text manipulation. Java allowed platform independence (yeah, yeah, with the JVM, but that I think is what sold it). All of the feature additions and deletions are nice (well, not all of them, I like some of the things he decided against including), but I don't think they add up to something that people really need. And if you can't produce that, I don't think the language is going to catch on.
Oh great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't people put as much effort into designing standardized interfaces for networking, threading, forking, database access, distributed logic, graphics, etc.
He goes on and on about how we need unified syntaxes for unit testing, inline assembly, assertions, etc., but is curiously silent with regard to the above issues.
What are the killer apps? Apache? OpenLDAP? OpenOffice? Mozilla? Konqueror? Photoshop? Gimp? Quake? Neverwinter Nights? Crystal Reports? Gaim?
Now with that list in mind, how does D make anyone's life simpler? Need a TCP/IP socket? Sure! Just use the POSIX one...unless you're on Windows...or coding for BeOS... What about talking to a database? Well there's ODBC implementation #1, ODBC implementation #2, native database-specific API #1, etc. Well at least there's graphics right? OpenGL all the way...except when you need DirectX...or the framebuffer interface... And for GUI libraries, we have GTK+, Qt, FLTK, MFC, XUL, etc. Along those lines, do you use Gnome or KDE for your object model? Do I write to libxml or use some COM wrapper for MSXML3.DOMDocument?
What good is uniformity in a complex type when anything I want to do with the language that implements it requires an unending list of non-D libraries that throw uniformity out of the window? Please explain to me how my life is enriched by this language? Please explain how solves more problems than it creates?
Sure Java, Python, et al have their share of problems, but at least I can open a socket or a filehandle without doing market research on libraries first. At least code written in those languages is readable by someone who knows the language. Database calls look the same no matter your operating system. That's what I want. Not just some new and exciting method for representing imaginary numbers.
And while we're talking about data types, he writes at length about how ints, longs, floats, etc. are all well-defined sizes unlike in C even though saying int16, int32, and int64 would be much easier to read and helpful. In addition, while the other types are well-defined and char is well-defined as a single 8-bit byte, wchar is sometimes 2 bytes, sometimes 4 bytes, and could be something else in the future depending on the wind. Ask the i18n coders about their experiences with wchar_t. Most end up using an avalanche of #ifdefs or just sidestep it altogether with their own array of bytes. Why? Because sometimes they're using UTF-16 and other times it is UCS4. You need to know how big the character type is! It's not something you leave up in the air! char16...char32... Are these too much to ask for?
I hope to god that no one actually adopts D for real work in the near future. If they do, they will run into the limitations I mentioned above and figure out some hack to get it to work. Hack begets hack begets hack and you are left with another bloated language lacking uniformity that people will bitch about on tech discussion boards. And then some person will say, "Hey! I've got this new language that fixes all of those inconsistencies with D that we all hate."
1. Wash
2. Rinse
3. Repeat
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone finds that D solves problems they have, or if they just plain like the syntax better (and how can you NOT, compared to C and C++ (and Java)??), then there's nothing wrong with someone using D. Hell, I'd use D just for the string-handling alone (one reason why I think C is pretty ridiculous for a general purpose language).
D has a marketing department... (Score:3, Informative)
While it looks fine, and useful, I can't help noticing that last time we heard about D it didn't have most of these features (templates, overloading etc.) and they were claiming that the lack of these features was it's strength.
I called them ignorant swine for that at the time.
The new D looks a lot like Modula 3, a great language aiming at the same sort of niche which disappeared without a trace.
Rocky J. Squirrel
I've Known Walter a Very Long Time (Some History) (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember sitting around with Walter and his buddies, talking about how much trouble Walter had in implementing C++. This was before the ISO standard, and to some extent, before the ARM definition. Walter isn't a fool; he's one of the brightest programmers I've ever met. When C++ was first emerging, I talked with compiler developers from Watcom, Microsoft, and others; all found C++ to be more than a challenge. Stroustrup invented an incredible power tool that ANSI complicated through the committee process; I am impressed that anyone has come close to making this monster work.
D is Walter's attempt to move beyond C++, based on his experiences in writing C, C++, and Java compilers. I'd say he has an excellent understanding of the issues involved.
Do I use D? No. While a good effort, D simply doesn't address my programming needs. When I look at a "new" language, I consider O'Caml or Haskell or something that provides very different paradigms. I don't believe it is possible to define a single, all-purpose programming language that scales across the spectrum of applications. I haven't got anything against D, but it doesn't do anything for me that I can't get elsewhere.
Whther or not I use D is irrelevent to its future. Walter Bright has created yet-another-C-derivative; it may succeed, or it may end up like the hundreds of "good ideas" that never caught on. But don't make the mistake of thinking Walter is foolish; he has a fine mind and has produced brilliant software before. He once started from obscurity to build the first useful XC++ compiler for MS-DOS and Windows; I will not be surprised at all if he proves his mettle again with D.
switch statements (Score:3, Insightful)
The stated argument is that it's desirable to make the language "look like" C. If you want a language that looks like C, use C. Personally, I want someting better. In fact, I think that making Java look like C was one of Java's biggest mistakes; it lulls the programmer into a false sense of familiarity when in fact Java's semantics are much different than C's.
And if you just want to make sure that C programmers don't get burned by their old habits, there's a simple solution to that as well. Require that each case end with a "break" or "fallthrough" statement. That way there's no ambiguity if the user forgets the break, it will produce a compile error.
Re:D? (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, couldn't resist