Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: the D programnming language
Message-ID: <7972@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 26 May 88 17:38:01 GMT
References: <6622@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <4149@haddock.ISC.COM> <6206@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <4186@haddock.ISC.COM> <6293@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <6293@sigi.Colorado.EDU> swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) writes:
>But there's always D!

I've been thinking a bit about what C could be like were it to be
designed today.  I think it could be made noticeably smaller with
cleaner semantics (for example: strict, extensible typing; reserved
name spaces).  Lots of stuff that people have been suggesting for
"D" could be left out and a better language would result.  But who
is going to do this?  Wirth keeps coming up with blah languages,
Ritchie has other fish to fry, etc.  I'd like to try but am not in
a position to do so.

C++ does not fit this notion of a C replacement, by the way, no
matter how useful it is.