bearophile wrote: > Walter Bright Wrote: > >> Progress on implementing D on .NET.< > > - This sounds quite incredible :-) Cristi is an awesome and prolific developer. (He wrote the Zerobugs D debugger for Linux.) > - The more implementations of D > there are, the more the language will have a chance to stick and > become used, so I think this is a good thing, regardless what I say > below. Yes. > - But is the dotnet able to support all things D supports? Yes. (!) > For example can you implement unions? Yes. > Inline Asm code? Yes (but it will be .net assembly code, not x86 assembly). > How about the interface with compiled C code? Yes. > Etc. - One of the advantages of D, > that is it produces true compiled executables, is lost here. That's like saying that an advantage of D is that it can run under Windows, an advantage that is lost when one runs it under Linux. <g> D.Net expands the options, not shrinks them. > - I think performance on dotnet can be good enough for most programs, but > a good C++-grade compiler like LLVM (LDC) can sometimes give even > more running speed. Native D compilers aren't going away. There's no plan and no way D will become a .net-only language. All it is is expanding D's domain. > - D is supposed to be a system language, but I > don't know if you can write system languages on dotnet, maybe not. You're right, but that doesn't matter. Use a D native compiler to do a system app. Use D.net to write an application that wants to interact with the .net ecosystem. > - C# is not that far from D, and it has several advantages (named > arguments, better lambda, is much more widely used, more built-in > reflection, LINQ, a way to support duck typing, run-time compilation > of code, etc etc), so how can D compete with C#? While I can see how > normal compiled D may compete with C# in some lower level niche, I > don't see yet how D.net may compete with C#. What has D# to offer > over C#? Maybe nothing? Advanced generative and metaprogramming capabilities for starters.