On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 07:21:58 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2015 at 06:02:47 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
There are not considered because DIP25 is "simpler" and you
and Walter
"like it". As long as nothing changes here, there is really
no point in
wasting my time.
That is a fair assessment. Basically I believe DIP25 is good
language design, and I have evidence for it. The evidence you
showed failed to convince me the design is a hack, and yelling
at me is unlikely to help. Please decide as you find fit. At
some point it is clear that several language designers will
disagree on estimating the quality of something.
If you are wondering why I'm inflammatory, here you go. You are
pulling me the old prove a negative trick. You have good
evidence that DIP25 is good design ? Good, because I have none.
And that's my proof. As long as I have no evidence that DIP25
is good, DIP25 is bad.
I've noticed that you seem to be quite arrogant. Usually it is a
result of ignorance. Your statement basically proves that.
Maybe you should take a break from programming for a while and
work on your attitude?
While you have no proof of this, If you do a little soul
searching you'll find that the world doesn't revolve around you.
Put down your toys and get out of the sandbox and you might learn
something!
