17.02.2013 10:28, Ary Borenszweig пишет:
Hello everyone :-)
...
(you might remember me: I'm the author of Descent)
A Hero is here! Let me kowtow to you, a Descent Creator!
... Let's save this world's energy.
It's pleasantly to see this point of view at efficiency.
But... do we really have to specify const pure safe nothrow and whatnot?
Can't the compiler be smarter? I'm sure there must be a better way. Most
new programming languages look like older ones. Newness comes slowly...
One time I asked in this newsgroup if it was possible to have an "auto"
keyword for function/method arguments. And... why not make all
functions/methods be templates on the type of its arguments?
I think nobody liked this idea. I said "Ruby is like this: you never
specify types in method definitions".
"But Ruby is not efficient". "Ruby is a dynamic language". "D is
compiled, so it's faster". "Don't make the mistake of comparing a
dynamic language with a static/systems programming language". This were
some of the answers I got.
I started thinking about this idea: a compiled language that looked like
a dynamic language. Is it possible?
Looks like it is, by what is the reason?
I'd like to specify function attributes explicitly because I do want to
get a compilation error when I e.g. use non-safe stuff in safe function
instead of a just compiler silently changing the function (and all
functions which use it) to unsafe. I also don't use type inference
everywhere because sometimes I do want to see exact types (yes, IDE
problem) and sometimes I just don't want a type to be accidentally
changed because of some function signature change as in the worst case
the code will still compile but will work incorrect.
Now about argument types. I do not understand the purpose of dynamic
typing at all and consider such languages too dangerous to use in real
projects. You proposal is a bit better as it will give CT errors
(instead of RT in dynamic typing case) but still bad as the code can
accidentally compile and work incorrect. Also this looks as a step back
as your proposal is like making from a function something like C's
preprocessor macro. And I remember how somebody defended C's macros and
told "you can do it with macro", then he gave his code where he made a
fatal mistake by passing two parameters to a macro in a wrong order. And
that code accidentally compiled. Same thing can happen with every high
templated code where it is hard to predict every possible argument
combination.
I also have seen a lot of mistakes of any types in D templated code so I
consider such code almost as dangerous as pointer arithmetic and you
proposal to make everything a template looks as insane.
...
Thanks for your comments,
Ary
P.S.: bin/crystal -e 'a = 0; 10.times { |i| a += i }; puts a' -O3 -ll
Sorry for such cruel comment, I it is just my opinion.
--
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
