On 2/25/2013 2:00 PM, foobar wrote:
On Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 22:28:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
By baking one scheme into the language, people will rarely feel a need to
reinvent the wheel, and will go on to more productive uses of their time.
This is a fallacy caused by the "culture" of c++ programmers - there is exactly
*zero* benefit in baking this into the language.
On the contrary, I think it has turned out rather well. Another success story of
baking certain things into the language is Ddoc. Unittest is a third. They've
been big wins for D.
None of those strictly has to be in the language - they can be done by
convention and 3rd party tools. Nevertheless, convenience, standardization and
mechanical enforcement of a convention seem to work better than applying
religious zeal to enforce a convention.
All of this is to say, that instead of trying to "fix" the c++ culture in D, we
should try to create a *better* D culture.
We do have a significantly better D culture than the C++ one. For example, C++
relies heavily and unapologetically on convention for writing correct, robust
code. D eschews that, and instead is very biased towards mechanical verification.
In fact there are many such "not c++"
features in D and which is why I find other languages such as rust a *much*
better design and it evolves much faster because it is designed in terms of -
what we want to achieve, how best to implement that.
How does rust handle this particular issue?
