On Sunday, 4 November 2018 at 15:40:03 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
There are many potential features that wouldn't cause problems
in isolation. Should we add all of them? Obviously not; the
result would be a horribly complex language that takes too much
time to learn and is impossible to maintain.
So instead, we need to aggressively filter out potential added
features to ensure that what they add is sufficiently important
to justify later maintenance costs and the effort of learning
things.
The justification for this feature rests on real-world examples
of bugs that have been caused by its lack.
I think there are more than enough real-world examples, of where
issues around 'type safety', or lack of, have caused a sufficient
number of bugs, to warrant a discussion about ways to further
improve type safety.
D module's are not type safe, at least as far as the code within
that module is concerned. To have to go to silly lengths just to
get type safety in D.
D is language the favors convenience 1st. type safety 2nd... or
is it 3rd..
This lack of enforcable type safety *within* a module, leads to
undisciplned code. Phobos is a 'real-world' example of it.
D needs an 'Industrial Strength D' book, as well as an 'Effective
D'.
I assume the moderator(s) doesn't like me anymore, as my posts
are no longer being published. Great way to run a discussion
forum by the way.
