On 02/10/2016 02:47 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 02:32:37PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 02/10/2016 02:25 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I see no non-trivial cost.
I, to, am not getting the cost story. H.S. Teoh, could you please
substantiate? -- Andrei
Sorry, I meant technical debt. My point was that this function needs to
provide more value than what's effectively just an alias for
writefln("%s, %s, %s", x, y, z).
Having used an equivalent to the proposed "dump" for many years (and an
inferior equivalent at that), I can attest that it definitely provides
sufficient value over write* functions. With write*, there's always
either excess verbosity that just gets in the way of my "flow", or I can
opt the succinct route and wind up looking at a dump of numbers finding
it difficult to know what number is what variable. Any homemade
wrapper/alias only creates even MORE work when trying to use it. Anyone
may be skeptical of the reasons, but it doesn't matter because again,
this is all direct personal experience, not hypothetical theorizing.
In short: Yes. Yes it does provide sufficient value. And the "technical
debt" is still vastly less than the time, effort and bother of having to
defend yet another clear improvement on the D perpetual debate forums.
