On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 11:16:37 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 12:52:19 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> An article comparing the above languages as per the DoD language requirements [0].
>>
>> http://jedbarber.id.au/steelman.html
>>
>> [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelman_language_requirements
>
>> Rust has by far the most support for the functional programming paradigm.
>
> I wonder how they concluded that.
>
> Atila

While I dont know Rust, it didnt come to me to question this claim knowing that Rust is generally advertised as being influenced by OCaml, and knowing that there is a long history between Rust and OCaml

On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 11:58:02 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>> Interesting that the author's criticism of Rust lines up very closely with Andrei's.
>
> Spoken on the forum for a language that has still not managed to make sure that a destructor actually gets called every time an object is destroyed.....
>
> Shachar

Just an observation. I wasn't criticizing Rust.

On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 14:49:17 UTC, Ali wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 11:16:37 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 12:52:19 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> An article comparing the above languages as per the DoD language requirements [0].
>>>
>>> http://jedbarber.id.au/steelman.html
>>>
>>> [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelman_language_requirements
>>
>>> Rust has by far the most support for the functional programming paradigm.
>>
>> I wonder how they concluded that.
>>
>> Atila
>
> While I dont know Rust, it didnt come to me to question this claim knowing that Rust is generally advertised as being influenced by OCaml, and knowing that there is a long history between Rust and OCaml

The first Rust compiler was in fact written in OCaml if I remember correct. You can even find it in the history of the github repository.

On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 11:16:37 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> I wonder how they concluded that.
>
> Atila

I too.

On 22.03.2018 12:16, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 12:52:19 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> An article comparing the above languages as per the DoD language requirements [0].
>>
>> http://jedbarber.id.au/steelman.html
>>
>> [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelman_language_requirements
> 
>> Rust has by far the most support for the functional programming paradigm.
> 
> I wonder how they concluded that.
> 
> Atila
> 

It is expression-based and can pattern-match on built-in tuples and algebraic data types, it has traits, variables are immutable by default and mutable aliasing is discouraged by the type system. (However, it lacks proper tail calls, just like D.)

On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 16:08:07 UTC, Martin Tschierschke wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 12:52:19 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> An article comparing the above languages as per the DoD language requirements [0].
>>
>> http://jedbarber.id.au/steelman.html
>>
>> [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelman_language_requirements
>
> Interesting!
>
> Do you understand this:
>
>>7H. Formal Array Parameters. The number of dimensions for formal array parameters must be specified in programs and shall be determinable during translation. Determination of the  subscript range for formal array parameters may be delayed until invocation and may vary from  call to call. Subscript ranges shall be accessible within function and procedure bodies without being passed as explicit parameters.
>
>>Subscript ranges are not accessible in D or Rust.
>
> I do not understand the meaning of "subscript ranges"? Isn't this slicing?

I believe this means the range of the underlying array. For arrays on the heap, the D runtime could actually figure this out (using the same mechanism as for calculating .capacity), but of course it can't be done generally.

On 22/03/18 16:45, Radu wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 11:58:02 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>> On 22/03/18 12:28, Meta wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 at 12:52:19 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> "The central failure of the language is the myopic focus on the affine typing solution to heap allocation and thread safety. The creators do not seem to realise that other solutions already exist, and that dynamic memory allocation is not the only safety issue a programmer has to cope with."
>>>
>>> Interesting that the author's criticism of Rust lines up very closely with Andrei's.
>>
>> Spoken on the forum for a language that has still not managed to make sure that a destructor actually gets called every time an object is destroyed.....
>>
>> Shachar
> 
> Shaming this one? https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14246#c6
> 
> Indeed, that sucks big time!

There is hope.

We finally merged a PR that removes the changelog that erroneously claimed this issue was resolved.
https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/commit/45ca5e35d3de824e104c3049083eb23fa03775c5

Progress!!

Shachar