On 01/24/2013 11:32 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:15:45 -0800, Robert Schadek <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 01/24/2013 10:56 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:54:09 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/24/13 4:08 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:58:41 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/24/13 3:45 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:51:32 -0500
Andrei Alexandrescu<[email protected]> wrote:
No, you merely came up with *some* specific cherry-picked
examples that
sparked *some* debate (with most of the disagreing coming from
you).
I simply mentioned three reasons that came to mind.
Andrei
While I don't approve of Mr. Sabalausky's tone or attitude, the
crux of
his argument is logically sound. The problem with @property isn't
@property, it's D's insistence on optional parens. If paren usage was
clearly defined then this would be a non-issue. I would like to point
out that I can't think of another systems/general purpose language
that
has an calling syntax specification as vague and convoluted as
D's. C#'s
is brutally simple. Java's is brutally simple. In C/C++ everything
is a
function or field, so, brutally simple.
Make D's calling syntax simpler, end optional parens!
Simplicity is clearly good, but there's something to be said about
those warts in chained calls. The UFCS-enabled idioms clearly bring
a strong argument to the table, there's no ignoring it.
Andrei
Then @property needs to be fixed such that optional parens don't
effect it one way or the other. Removing the concept of properties
and making functions that look like properties through optional
parens is a very poor (and lazy) solution. As Mr. Ruppe pointed out,
properties are DATA, and functions do stuff. That statement alone is
an excellent argument for clearly delineating which is which...
Properties are not functions.
At while you're at it, just get ride of:
int[] a.
a.length = 10;
That this grows the array stills creeps me out.
Robert
Well, from a syntax standpoint it's legitimate, and D's dynamic arrays
are something I prefer over C#'s less flexible solution. My main
problem with using it is that D's GC is absurdly naive. When this
seemingly benign action causes your program to freeze for non-trivial
fractions of a second for the millionth time, it can be quite despair
inducing...
Yes, the syntax is legit. It's the semantic that "scares" me. IMHO it
feels strange that assigning a variable resizes a array. Something like
a.resize(10) would make me feel better.
