On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 20:20:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

You may up creating types that are consider to be bad design by other people, and thus create unneeded issues. What exactly do you have in your vision that the current language is preventing you from carrying out that vision?

• Alex

On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 21:19:55 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

Less bloat.

Why would making the type system more uniform be considered as bad design?

On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 21:21:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

This isn't exactly helpful here. What exactly do you mean by "Less bloat" here? Lines Of code? Memory?

Why does the current type system needs to be more uniform then it currently is? Are there limitations that is negatively effect you? If so, how is your solution would address this without introducing the "lisp curse"?

• Alex

On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 21:37:30 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

Yes, fewer lines of code, more homogeneous.

There is no "lisp curse" in this. As I said, you can have syntactical sugar for the common case if need be.

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 17:27:25 UTC, Dr Machine Code wrote:

The most important aspects of a programming language, are its cognitve demands and problem-solving performance.

In the end, people just want to solve problems, quickly, easily, and efficiently.

This is, and always has been, the driver for language development and evolution.

So 'if' your assertion is correct, then one basis for that, is that 'people' are solving their problems more quickly, more easily, and more efficiently, using other (as in one or more) languages.

On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 21:55:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

How about you write down your proposal in a file first then link said proposal, so that the rest of us can see what exactly are you proposing here. Right now you are making claims without substantiating them.

-Alex

On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 22:22:04 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

Uhm. Why would I write a proposal? The proof is all over Phobos.

A more uniform core language would help immensly on meta programming. That is just a fact.

On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 22:35:10 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

That is because I literally have no idea what exactly does your solution consist here! Right now, I am not convinced at all regarding your solution.

• Alex

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 17:27:25 UTC, Dr Machine Code wrote:

I think this argument has it backwards. The big corporations with deep pockets are a consequence of the success, not the cause. Big corporations like Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc only really become interested in Rust in 2019. Until then it was a small enthusiast's language with the occasional in-house project here and there, not unlike D.

In fact I find that the geneses of D and Rust are remarkably similar: both were born in a company, out of frustration with C++ and the belief that their creators could design something better. Even the problems of C++ that D and Rust wanted to fix overlap to a large degree: better memory management, better type system, better encapsulation, getting rid of the preprocessor...

Of course from there their respective routes were very different. Rust succeeded in convincing the big corps to fund it and adopt it. But if we are debating why D didn't, the question is then what made Rust different. I tried to expose what I believe are the reasons.

On Tuesday, 9 November 2021 at 07:22:01 UTC, arco wrote:

Not even close to similar. Digital Mars a one-man company and D a one-man project. Rust had and continues to have the resources of Mozilla behind it.