On Sunday, 26 July 2015 at 15:24:45 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/25/15 7:25 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 22:09:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/25/15 5:24 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 13:41:22 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
Now stack these advantages against the advantages of
template
constraints. It's a landslide.
Andrei
This is a false dichotomy.
We could have both (i.e. add traits to D), but would we want
to? --
Andrei
Yes. Most template code would benefit from it. For the same
reason that
being able to bypass the type system is important, you also
would like
that most of the code don't.
I think we disagree here. It doesn't seem to me that adding
features to D is helpful at this point. -- Andrei
I think thats valid, D is already too big.
I for one would actually be more happy if some things were
removed, rather than added. Template specialization and template
constraints for one could probable be folded into the same thing.
Structs vs Classes is weird. The default GC. Properties also
being kinda weird. Lots of little warts.
Always hoping for a D3. It has become my HL3 for programming
languages, it wont ever happen, but I still hope. And if it did,
it would be the most glorious thing ever.
