On Tuesday, 4 March 2014 at 15:52:37 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:32:52AM +0000, Chris wrote:
[...]
Maybe that's why it is so hard to see the benefits of
templates,
because many cases (of abstraction) are already covered by
OOP. I
like templates, but I'm not sure if they are as useful as D's
ranges. Ranges and component programming handle the ubiquitous
input>filter>output paradigm present in every program and help
to
break down the program's logic into digestible chunks, a logic
you
cannot just copy and paste (but you can reuse the chunks). In
cases
where you use templates, you can also get away with copy and
paste
and replace "int" with "double".
[...]
Ranges in D will be nowhere as convenient as they are today
without
templates. When you write your own components, you basically
have to use
templates in order to not incur unacceptable overhead (or impose
arbitrary limitations on usage -- such as requiring something
to be
derived from some chosen base class).
T
True, true. The fact that the compiler can check for the right
types is great.
Btw, the quote you have in this post:
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence. -- Napoleon Bonaparte
I'm surprised that Napoleon would say something like this. Malice
is often a characteristic of the incompetent. The only way to get
the better of their betters. :-)
