[cleberz]

> The De facto super set of D code will always be D.

Well, I'd like to make it clear that creating a "de facto super set of D" is not my objective, anyway.

But I'd like to say that, although compiled languages are nice and D is really amazing, I don't even dream of using D to create some quick-and-dirty scripts, the same way I don't even dream of using Til to create shell scripts (I never met any general-purpose language that served as a nice shell, Tcl being the closest one, but still - it's not a traditional shell and the experience is only tolerable, IMHO).

Furthermore, it's also not my objective with Til, but I believe, anyway, that a nice scripting language on top of D would prove very beneficial to the language - it's interesting to try it, right? At least to see what happens...

[mhh__]

I'm not sold. Why do I want a scripting language to glue together that is designed to be good a glueing things together?

It's a common misconception that programming languages are either fast or expressive - D is both. The rub is probably that you need to know more about programming in the sense that you have to have good aesthetic taste but also a knowledge of what makes programs actually fast to achieve both.

And besides, what is a script? Code. If you're really only going to use a file once, then I guess do what ever you want but most "scripts" end up being programs.

[na85]

>Why do I want a scripting language to glue together that is designed to be good a glueing things together?

A good example might be calling legacy libraries like BLAS and LAPACK. These are battle-tested libraries that represent probably hundreds of millions of dollars of developer time, but Fortran is annoying for IO-heavy tasks (at least in my opinion).

I like that I can spin up a scripting language like python and call into LAPACK for performance and correctness, but still have modern and ergonomic networking or what have you.

[mhh__]

Again, D is designed to make calling into C code easy within the same program you were working on. The idea that you can't have a language that is both expressive and fast is just Stockholm syndrome from C++ being unergonomic.

Check it out on the website, you can write an RPN calculator in D in less lines than a Haskell implementation last time I checked, all while checked to be pure by the compiler.

Not only would a scripting language be slower because the compiler would be a hack without access to LTO and not have a proper type system etc., It would he a complete waste of time.

[cleberz]

You are entitled to your opinion, sir. Have a nice day.