The D Programming Language

[Dave Sill]

(I'm risking beating a dead horse here, but I *do* want to make sure
it's dead.)

In article <7399 at brl-smoke.ARPA> Doug Gwyn <gwyn at brl-smoke.arpa> writes:
>My point is that it does no good to introduce a language that uses
>funny APL-like symbols, when the vast majority of existing and
>near-future terminals and printers won't support the symbols.

I totally agree.  It's the latter I lament.

>It isn't clear to me that funny APL-like symbols are preferable to
>short keywords (for example).

It isn't clear to some people that icons are preferable to filenames,
either.  However, I think the majority prefers mnemonic symbols for
operators.  X <- Y is more mnemonic for assignment than X = Y.  Nobody
would really prefer the <- digraph to a real left-arrow character,
though.

>Note that even the mathematicians are
>starting to use such notations in preference to inventing mystical
>symbols, especially in category theory.

I don't know diddly about category theory.  But I do know that some
day, maybe 10 years from now, maybe 50 years from now, we will finally
have to admit that the typewriter keyboard designed at the turn of the
century is simply no longer adequate.

As Wittgenstein points out, the limits of our language (or our
alphabet) limit our ability to conceptualize and communicate clearly.
It's not good enough to say that we have an unlimited number of
combinations of characters available so we're really not limited.
That's the equivalent of saying we only need a 5000 (or whatever) word
vocabulary since all others words can be defined using the fixed
vocabulary.

=========
The opinions expressed above are mine.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world."
					-- Ludwig Wittgenstein