https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13670
--- Comment #4 from Ketmar Dark <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan M Davis from comment #3) > (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #2) > > so i don't have to > > track if my variable is dynamic or static array manually. > > In general, I'd be very worried about code that didn't care about whether it > was dealing with a dynamic array or a static array, because they're > fundamentally different types. so why so many efforts were spent to make dynamic arrays looks like static arrays? if they are "fundamentally different types", they shouldn't look the same. there must be another different operation for them with different syntax, different declaration syntax and so on. and compiler *must* at least warn me that it's so stupid that it can't make the simple code works as any sane person expected it to work. and i still can't understand why i should manually track if my variable is of static array type or of dynamic array type. and i'm still sure that this code should never asserts, it's nonsense: info.list[idx] = saveIt(info, count-1); assert(info.list[idx] != 0); it's insane. it's counterintuitive. it's beyoud any logic. language that asserts here for built-in type is a toy language which shouldn't be used even for simple throw-away scripts. i can never explain to anyone why built-in type have to work like this. bwah! i can't even explain this to myself. this is ridiculous. D smells. with all that "let's keep our legacy 'cause Random Reddit User will go insane despite the actual users are begging for fix that", "let's not bless dfix for another year", etc. another hobbyst project that wastes years of my time. my bad, i have to recognize that hobbyst smell from the beginning and not hoping for the best. i'm glad that i was unsuccessfull pushing our development department towards D. they were right, there is no sense to learn another quirky language that has so little libraries when we already have quirky C++ with alot of libraries. so be it. --
