On 2/23/15 6:35 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 01:43:11 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
This is a free world. Walter and I are working on a DIP. Please work
on yours. I can't promise we'll choose to your liking, but this is the
one way you can make your point heard and understood. What doesn't
work is trash talk.
I guarantee I recognize brilliance when I see it. So if you have a
brilliant idea, it won't be missed. Have at it. One thing I cannot do
is choose a solution that you prefer over one I prefer - this does
remain a subjective topic. I can't help it. But please don't consider
me an idiot because I don't like what you propose.
I don't think you are being fair here. Even if not formally expressed as
a DIP, at least Mark and myself have come up with fairly detailed
explanations, in topic you participated in, so we can't really do as if
it didn't existed. Also, I do not think this is a subjective matter. Yes
there is a part of it that is matter of taste and is subjective, but
overall there is a big chunk of objectively discussable things is there
proposal, like language complexity and expressiveness added to the
language.
But here is mostly what I think is going on. We are discussion various
issues, including make the GC faster, enable safe RC, make @nogc more
usable (for instance exception usability), safe ref, enforcing type
qualifier contraints, and so on...
For each of these issues, solution are proposed. What I (and I think
Mark would agree) propose would solve them all. Yes this is more complex
than any of the solution proposed for each of these. But this is way
simpler, and enable way more than having a unique, simpler solution for
each of these problems.
Just replied to Marc about this. I should have phrased my response as "I
don't know of a _reasonable_ solution". BTW please don't call me
dishonest anymore, it's doubly inappropriate seeing as we also work
together. You wouldn't think there's an actual possibility I go around
lying to people about such stuff. Thanks.
Andrei
