On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:29:34 UTC, eles wrote:
On Thursday, 31 October 2013 at 14:28:05 UTC, dennis luehring wrote:
3. "My boss is right: is just a toy pretending to be serious" - maybe, maybe not - but not because of your stupid file extension comments

It adds. Tell to my boss about that extensions and he will be grateful for you providing him ONE MORE REASON to laugh. At me.

In my experience, when it comes to software development, bosses
tend to have no clue what they are talking about anyway :o)  So I
would just laugh back at him/her (might keep that to myself
though, depending on how secure I feel my job is).

This seems like a bit of bikeshedding issue.  You may have a
strong preference for one option, apparently others feel
differently.  Is it really that big an issue?  I don't think the
quality of a language depends on its file naming conventions.  I
don't like the way Python uses whitespace .. but I still like the
language.

I agree the compiler shouldn't be adding anything to the supplied
names, however if I understand the issue I see no real problem
with requiring that D source files/scripts end with a .d
extension.

Finally, you've said a few times that D has crappy tooling.  I am
not sure how this file naming stuff has anything to do with that
(other than superficial ways).

Reply via email to