www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - A score card?

reply bcs <bcs example.com> writes:
http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

By my count, there is only 17 reasons D "will not work".

Not bad considering every language out will hit a few of those points.
Oct 12 2011
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 10/12/2011 10:06 AM, bcs wrote:
 http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

 By my count, there is only 17 reasons D "will not work".

 Not bad considering every language out will hit a few of those points.

There'd be no progress in programming languages if people paid attention to those things :-)
Oct 12 2011
parent bcs <bcs example.com> writes:
On 10/12/2011 11:19 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 10/12/2011 10:06 AM, bcs wrote:
 http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

 By my count, there is only 17 reasons D "will not work".

 Not bad considering every language out will hit a few of those points.

There'd be no progress in programming languages if people paid attention to those things :-)

To make progress, you need to be insightful enough to get the point, smart enough to know that it's true and crazy enough to ignore it all. Or to put it another way, every programming language ever created is a total failure for at least one of those reasons.
Oct 12 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"bcs" <bcs example.com> wrote in message 
news:j74hek$u4b$1 digitalmars.com...
 http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

 By my count, there is only 17 reasons D "will not work".

 Not bad considering every language out will hit a few of those points.

That's absolutely hilarious, I loved that! :)
Oct 12 2011
prev sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
bcs:

 http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html

There is a derived site that generates the rant for you: http://mashedtaters.net/var/language_checklist.php Below there is a possible result about D :-) Bye, bearophile ----------------------- You appear to be advocating a new "multi-paradigm" and statically-typed programming language. Your language will not work. Here is why it will not work. You appear to believe that that garbage collection is free, that nobody really needs a REPL, that convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy and that specifying behaviors as "undefined" means that programmers won't rely on them. Unfortunately, your language has implicit type conversion, has goto, lacks multiple inheritance, lacks algebraic datatypes, lacks covariant array typing, lacks monads, lacks dependent types, lacks call-by-name and lacks call-cc. The following philosophical objections apply: * The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler * Your type system is unsound * The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google * Compiled languages will never be "extensible" Additionally, your marketing has the following problems: * Noone really believes that your language is faster than C. Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that we already have an unsafe imperative language and you have reinvented C++ but worse. In conclusion, I think you have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly. -----------------------
Oct 13 2011