Sean L. Palmer says...
>
>Syntax can make or break a language.

That may be true but misses completely my point.  Language design involves decisions different from language usage.  You are saying in effect, "The D project will not investigate interesting language designs if their syntax is bad."  That's an arbitrary and unintelligent approach.  We should dig through the dirt to find the gold and diamonds.  Then we can polish, grind, cut, and assemble them into beautiful jewels.

Though I agree that syntax counts, it's out of scope for this thread.  We are prospecting, not jewel-cutting.  We are speaking as language designers, building a new language.  People who wear jewels typically do not spend their time down in the mine shafts.  If we have to dig through some syntactical dirt, that's only natural.

Mark

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:b311o9$pfh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter says...
> >The Dylan syntax clearly is a high barrier for C/C++ programmers.
> Syntax is irrelevant.  D wants to have C-ish syntax, I know, but that is
beside
> the point.  One could invent ten different syntaxes for C yet semantically
they
> would all be the same language, C.
> What counts are the underlying paradigms and computing models; those are
what
> interest me.  Wrap any syntax you like around them.

From a computational point of view, you're right, syntax is irrelevant. From a marketing point of view, however, syntax is everything <g>.

>From a computational point of view, you're right, syntax is irrelevant. From a marketing point of view, however, syntax is everything <g>.

Only if the syntax expresses useful language constructs.  QED.

Mark

In article <b36sln$6tu$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Mark Evans says...
>
>
>>From a computational point of view, you're right, syntax is irrelevant. From a marketing point of view, however, syntax is everything <g>.
>
>Only if the syntax expresses useful language constructs.  QED.

The QED is just too baiting...

I must have seen 100 near-dead languages referenced on this newsgroup.  Walter's right.  Marketing is everything.  Make it look like C.  Make it imperitive like C.  Then, slip in a few killer features, and make your money selling "D for Dummies".

Bill

Give a language great constructs and ugly inconsistent syntax and you'll get a cult language following, not a mainstream language.  Very few people will see past the syntax to the beautiful constructs beneath.

QED?  OMG.  You have a point, but you have to realize we have one too.  All aspects of a language are important.

BTW I see you throwing around a lot of URL's here.  Some are quite interesting .  But I will warn you before you waste too much time:  Walter is not easily persuaded to add features to D.  You and I may or may not agree with everything, but in the end it's Walter's language and we will just have to live with that.   If you want some of the features you propose, perhaps you should use one of those languages instead of trying to make D into something it's not.  D is currently positioned as a small, cleaner variant of C with some more advanced features borrowed from Java, C++, and Pascal, and maybe a little Eiffel.  It's extremely imperative in design and as such will not easily be morphed to have the functional characteristics you desire.  I personally have lobbied for functions without side effects, tuples, etc to no avail.  Walter has declared intent to keep D as easy to implement compilers for as possible, and intent to keep it as compatible with C as is tolerable, while making the language more useful and less painful.

Stirring the pot isn't bad, just don't get your hopes up.  ;)

D may not be my dream language, but it certainly seems like it'll be a useful one, and more pleasant to use than many which exist today.

Sean

"Mark Evans" <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:b36sln$6tu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> >From a computational point of view, you're right, syntax is irrelevant.
From
> >a marketing point of view, however, syntax is everything <g>.
>
> Only if the syntax expresses useful language constructs.  QED.
>
> Mark