Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: D Wishlist
Message-ID: <1988Mar6.005553.1284@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <12128@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 88 00:55:53 GMT

This sort of wishlist is the wrong way to go about it, assuming that what
is wanted is a language that will actually be widely implemented and widely
used.  If that is to happen, the new language must be either (a) virtually
completely upward-compatible with C and significantly better, or (b) *LOTS*
better than C in at least one area.  Most of the things on this wishlist
are incompatible but unimportant.  (Not trivial, necessarily, and in the
abstract I agree with many of them, but that isn't the issue.)  Unless some
truly major improvement can be had somewhere else, a language designed from
this wishlist may receive critical acclaim but will never be popular.

Remember also that the competition is not just C.  C++ is both upward
compatible *and* a major improvement in certain areas.

I used to be very enthusiastic about designing better languages.  But I
can no longer work up much enthusiasm for lost causes.  I could easily
design a language that would be noticeably better than C.  However, I don't
know how to design a language that is *enough* better than C++ for it to
be worth the trouble.
-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
condemned to reinvent it, poorly.    | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry