4 ms·
I'll have to agree with the D comment. As someone who actually writes in D (for fun), I felt that it was more like a checklist for D than a wish list for Go. Th
by CountHackulus 16y ago
I'll have to agree with the D comment. As someone who actually writes in D (for fun), I felt that it was more like a checklist for D than a wish list for Go. Though yes, I will concede that Go + those changes != D.
Unfortunately, the Cheez Whiz ponies aren't implemented yet, but if D ever hits 3.0 maybe it can be pushed into the spec.
- uriel 16y ago> Unfortunately, the Cheez Whiz ponies aren't implemented yet, but if D ever hits 3.0 maybe it can be pushed into the spec. I'd wait first for the any of the existing D2 compiler(s) to at least implement the features that are in D2 'spec', as it currently stands there are no implementations of D2, and that is without going into all the bugs in the most used compilers.
- sausagefeet 16y agoI got the impression he wanted something close to Ocaml than to D. D is much more complicate than what he is proposing.
- munificent 16y agoI do think D is probably closer to where my heart is. I think my ideal low-level language is a bit like C + some of ML's type system. I think it may be possible to get that without being as heavyweight as D, but I'm not sure.