On Friday, March 08, 2013 18:32:43 Rob T wrote: > The point I'm trying to illustrate is difficult to understand > unless you have to personally implement 1000 try/catch statements > in your code base. You'll never know how a seemingly trivial item > like re-specifying the same pointless catch statement over and > over and over again quickly adds up and the frustration knowing > that there's a simple solution at hand, but it's not available in > what is otherwise a much better language than the one that has > the solution.
Except that the C++ one is just as pointless. In both cases, you're telling it to catch everything. It's just that syntax is slightly different, because D doesn't allow you to throw without an explicit variable. And it's only a handful of characters difference in length. So, to some of us at least, it seems like you're blowing things out of proportion. And given the lack of clarity in the C++ solution, it comes off as being worse from a technical perspective, regardless of the typing involved. - Jonathan M Davis
