On Thursday, 13 November 2014 at 11:44:31 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I don't follow how you associate that opinion with
implementation of
scope.
I don't like semantics where I have to state that the parameters
and the function should be "pure". It should be opposite. Say, if
you have an array on the stack, then I'd like to take a slice of
it and send it to a function to compute a sum(). But, I don't
want the type system to prevent me from doing it because the
author of sum() forgot to add "scope" to the parameter.
What is the difference between a function that is annotated as
"pure" and a function where all input is "scope"? This is
backwards!
Function signatures should not say "I am playing nice…", that
should be the default. They should say "watch out, I'm stealing
your stuff!".
By contrast, I have no idea what you're suggesting, or how it's
not a
'crutch'... but if it's anything to do with C++, I'm dubious,
and
kinda frightened.
C++ is multi-paradigm and backwards compatible focused, and is
therefore ruled by a mess of conventions and fixes, true.
After having adapted to D and distancing from C++, trying to go
back is like some form of inhuman torture!
C++ is not excellent… Too verbose and grown out of the
include/macro system (which suits C better than C++). I find C++
ok when I use it like C with bells (and leave out the whistles).
Judged on common ground, there is no competition. It's only
'the devil you know' case that I think can possibly make an
argument for C++.
I don't know. I only use C++ for things that is suitable for C.
Like DSP/realtime. Fortunately I don't have to deal with other
people's C++ code.
Many C++ frameworks look really ugly, but with C++14 I think I
shall be able to make my own code look acceptable (readable).
