On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 22:36:59 UTC, qznc wrote:
On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 20:57:39 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:27:03PM +0100, qznc wrote:
I read an interesting article [0] with a weird title. It got
me
clip
Why would you prefer D? D supports generic programming, which
means less code and type safety. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That could be misinterpreted to mean "less code and less type
safety".
(I know it sounds silly, but you never know... first
impressions can
mean a lot to a newcomer.) Maybe a better wording might be:
"... less code and better type safety." ?
I believe I had written "better" at some point, but was not
happy with it.
How can type safety be "better"? Type safety is binary. A type
cannot be 50% safe. I changed it to "more type safety", in the
sense that you need less casts. Short form of "more pervasive
type safety". More suggestions welcome.
Thanks for the feedback :)
perhaps try " ...generic programming, which gives you type safety
with less code." or some variation on that.
