Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!ncar!boulder!tramp!swarbric
From: swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: the D programnming language
Message-ID: <6316@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 27 May 88 01:57:55 GMT
References: <6622@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <4149@haddock.ISC.COM> <6206@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <4186@haddock.ISC.COM> <6293@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <7972@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Sender: news@sigi.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 25

In article <7972@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>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.

I dunno, maybe someone might like to start a D mailing list where people could
at least talk about this?  I was thinking of doing this, but if the person
who runs the mailing list has to edit messages I can't do it at this point.

I do know that I could in no way design a language right now.  I've only been
seriously programming for less than four years, so I wouldn't even dream of
my own programming language.  Still, I do have a few ideas.  One thing, D (or
whatever you would like to call it) should not be a superset of C.  I think it
would probably look a lot like it, but some things should also be changed.

Frank Swarbrick (and, yes, the net.cat)           swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU
...!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!tramp!swarbric
"Feed me more lines"