On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 07:19:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:00 PM, eles wrote:
On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 18:08:15 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 14:47:22 UT
We don't want the situation of C++ where people only use 80%
of it's
features and that 80% is different for everyone. I've
recently been
writing some Go code and it's become clear to me just how big
of a
language D really is.
You miss one point here. C++ is not despised for being
complete, but
for being ugly. Is not features in it that are too many, but
the quirks.
Add more quirks to D instead of a lean syntax. This way you
will end
with C++.
You guys should watch again The last thing D needs. Library
syntax shows
'it can be done' but *as a quirk*
Frankly, you can already do *everything* just by typing 'asm',
isn't?
You really want to stay there?
Everytime I follow the process managemnt and decision in D, it
looks to
me like IndburIII-esque:
'To him, a stilted geometric love of arrangement was "system,"
an
indefatigable and feverish interest in the pettiest facets of
day-to-day
bureaucracy was "industry," indecision when right was
"caution," and
blind stubbornness when wrong, "determination."'
It is one thing to thrieve for caution and determination. But
another
thing to get those in the right way.
Right now, guys, you are going on the wrong road. Being
conservative
when wrong and revolutionary when wrong too.
How is anything about specifying the length of a constant array
revolutionary?
Certainly, you end up by being both conservative and
revolutionary. But,
neither when it is needed.
I really support the syntax. Because makes one quirk less.
Special syntax for a niche case instead of using a function...
looks one quirk more, not less.
Really? What about the niceness of uniformity in declaration?
Imagine that you declare first a dynamic array, then you would
like it to be static.
Suddenly you have to quirk.
You defend inconsistency.
