Bruno Medeiros:
> It may not be exactly what I was thinking then. I was thinking of a completely new syntax design, so as to be able to be fully "optimized" for efficiency/productivity.

I see. (Note that even if Python syntax isn't D syntax, lot of people are used to it, so it's a kind of "standard" by itself.) Do you have some specific ideas? The author of Delight may be interested in what you have to say, because Delight is very young, so several improvement are possible still.

Bye,
bearophile

bearophile wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros:
>> It may not be exactly what I was thinking then. I was thinking of a completely new syntax design, so as to be able to be fully "optimized" for efficiency/productivity.
> 
> I see. (Note that even if Python syntax isn't D syntax, lot of people are used to it, so it's a kind of "standard" by itself.) Do you have some specific ideas? The author of Delight may be interested in what you have to say, because Delight is very young, so several improvement are possible still.
> 
> Bye,
> bearophile

I don't have any ideas for a specific change. Working on something like this would probably take a fair amount of time, as like I said, any potential change in syntax could have several implications in other syntax constructs.
But I can give some examples I found interesting: Nemerle for instance. It is based on C#, but has a re-designed functional syntax. One concrete example, is that it changed the if-statement to be an expression instead of just a statement, thus making the C-famlily ?: ternary operator redundant, so that it could be removed.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D