Hi,
I think that many will find something interesting in this article:
-----
https://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fpost%2F257875%2F
-----
Sorry translated using google translate.

On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 at 18:59:42 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
>http%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fpost%2F257875%2F

Just some usual C++ critique and very vague basic principles about having a core language with some extensions and library support, nothing constructive or informative really.

On Thursday, 14 May 2015 at 06:02:37 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 at 18:59:42 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
>>http%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fpost%2F257875%2F
>
> Just some usual C++ critique and very vague basic principles about having a core language with some extensions and library support, nothing constructive or informative really.

The author develops his own ideal programming language and is based on his tongue D. Actually, currently the best candidate for the common languages - this is D, which proves this article.

"I agree completely. I among evernote-notes, where I keep the idea of ​​the differences in programming languages, rather big section is dedicated IDE; the design language to take into account a bunch of IDE (in particular, the syntax of the language should be structured in such a way that it is convenient to work avtokompilitu, Tree Builder classes and other tools IDE, which should work "on the fly"); I did point out specific recommendations to the IDE, by organizing projects, etc., which are usually in the language is not included. And one of the first things with which I began experimenting with my compiler (fork D) - is to write a simple IDE for Qt and do visualizer AST (and then will visualizers all transformations within the compiler, up to the code generator). That is not only to use the compiler, but even without it razrarabyvat GUI uncomfortable."

On Thursday, 14 May 2015 at 06:02:37 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 at 18:59:42 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
>>http%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fpost%2F257875%2F
>
> Just some usual C++ critique and very vague basic principles about having a core language with some extensions and library support, nothing constructive or informative really.

I generally agree with you. But his idea of language extension looks very nice, and as I think is similar to tendency in D make some features part of library (e.g. octal numbers, complex numbers). And verbalize such concept can make this tendency sharper and clearer and possible more productive.

The last Andrej proposal for allocators may become example of such "language extension". D specifies interface of allocators and introduce reference implementation, but for example embeded D provide other implementation.

On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 at 18:59:42 UTC, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
> Hi,
> I think that many will find something interesting in this article:
> -----
> https://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fpost%2F257875%2F
> -----
> Sorry translated using google translate.

Can few to say regarding your thoughts, but need to mention that that site is the only significant one I am aware of with anti-technical, inflated, self - important culture of discussion (this has nothing to do with your post particular).