1 Sep
2004
1 Sep
'04
11:04 a.m.
At Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:15:54 +1000,
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:15:24 -0400
Pete Bessman <ninjadroid(a)gazuga.net> wrote:
That's actually precisely what I like about it. D is, depending on
your vantage point, a modernized C, a cleaned up C++, or a
non-retarded Java (sorry, I can't think of a more diplomatic way to
say that). That's all it's supposed to be. There isn't exactly
a dearth of more experimental languages out there, I like seeing
a real grizzled and pragmatic language like D pop up.
--Pete
<http://www.gazuga.net>
"Nothing great was ever achieved by being realistic!" --Tom Venuto
The D programming language looks very promising
in this regard, but
its newsgroup faces a daily battle with people who seem more
interested in creating a religion than a tool.
I had a bit of a look at D and I was majorly underwhelmed. This
is a direct descendant of C, C++ and Java. It extends this lineage
a little, but completely ignores ideas from languages such as Perl,
Python, Ruby and the whole constellation of functional languges.