On Friday, 20 November 2020 at 18:46:40 UTC, Martin wrote:
On Friday, 20 November 2020 at 10:03:18 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
I remember days when I liked UFCS too . Unfortunately it is not so awesome when you use it with IDE.

And I would like to add: if you use in a bigger team. It's annoying when every dev have a own taste.. And together with optional () it's hell - no joke. The need to think about codeatyle definitions in such detail is a nogo for big projects.

This is a good point. I find with D there are many different ways to write code and each can look different on the page. Where I work we mandated all D code will be implemented in Phobos style and use Phobos and mir source as guides. Some parts do heavily use UFCS/optional() and some parts do not. We have not had issues with readability, but maybe our D code isn't that complicated because it is mostly PC side data analysis tools.

Personally a really like UFCS, even `"hello".writeln;` and I think I'd rather have UFCS than autocompletion. But then I did start out in industry well before autocomplete was a thing so maybe I have never relied on it too much.


Thanks all for the replies!
norm


Reply via email to