Linked by Owen Anderson on Mon 19th Apr 2004 05:43 UTC
General Development For years the development scene has been dominated by the C family of languages, primarily C itself and its immediate successor C++. Recent years have given rise to other C-descendents, however, such as Sun's Java and Microsoft's C#.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
System Programming and Critique
by Warren on Tue 20th Apr 2004 21:17 UTC

D has a neat way of suppress garbage collection and even to allocate objects on the stack. Perfectly good for kernel programming. The choice of GC or not to GC, should not force you to change progamming languages.

The D language fails to innovate or be up to date where it could be:

Unimaginitive use of Unicode, it should use math operators like the single-character less-than-or-equals. Source code could be rich text.

Fixed-width fonts are artifacts of ancient history and should not be required for new programming languages.

Languages need better support for SQL data types (date/time) and the possibility of null fields.

There is no reason to keep the old-fashioned if statement. The if/else/elsif/endif format is widely used and understood and is easier to deal with. Single character graphics could be innovated to shorten the text. This requires some work on IDE's.

Modern languages should assume IDE's and should support IDE features like fill-in-the-blank coding.

The docs have great quote that made me smile:

"There's no need for multiple warning levels in D, a "D Puzzle Book", a lint program, a "Bug Of The Month", or a world's leading expert on preprocessor token concatenation"

The D language appears to be a proprietary invention of Walter Bright who is the sole arbiter of what gets in the language and the owner of the intellectual property. Although there is an OSS implementation.

Apparently there is no way to include the code for the Design-By-Contract in the release builds, but this could change.