Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa From: dsill@NSWC-OAS.arpa (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: The D Programming Language Message-ID: <12055@brl-adm.ARPA> Date: 1 Mar 88 18:23:13 GMT Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA Lines: 52 In article <225800007@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.EDU writes: >I find it hard to believe that a successor to C is needed or would be >appreciated. Yes, C is adequate for most of today's needs. But it does have its problems and weaknesses. If we want to have a language to take its place tomorrow, we had better start thinking about it today, though. >I come to this as a former 100% Fortran (and assembler) >programmer who now uses C about 80 % of the time. C does have a few, >minor defects (for instance, I will never , ever understand the syntax >of declarations; I have had a guru make up a huge chart listing dozens of >them, which I carry in my wallet.) So does every other language. To varying degrees. Hopefully D will learn from C, and at least not repeat the same mistakes. >C does >one thing extremely well: convert the heart of the machine operations of >a byte-addressible, conventional processor (i.e. the PDP11) into a nice >higher language. Certainly an appropriate behavior for a systems programming language designed in the early seventies. But D should be targeted to a more general purpose, as C is being used today. Also, D should be more adaptable to unconventional processors than C is. E.g., it should be more suitable for parallel processing environments. >It is pleasantly compact, and very full of nice >shortcuts (e.g. "string"[i] ). If you dislike C , try other languages: >Fortran, Pascal, Ada ,Modula 2. Me, well , I like C and Fortran and loathe >the rest. D would not be for people who dislike C. It would be for people who like C but find it lacking by today's standards in certain areas. >But if a new language is to be designed, and done really well, it >won't be done by committee. For the perfect example look in comp.lang.fortran >and read about 88tran, the totally new language with two heads, brought >to you by X3J3. We aren't designing D here. We are pointing out those things lacking in C that we'd like to see done right in a currently hypothetical successor. Of course if somebody wanted to digest our discussions, design a language based on them, implement a compiler (perhaps based on GNU C or C++), call it D, and distribute it freely, I wouldn't complain. ========= The opinions expressed above are mine. "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein