On 3/28/2016 9:56 PM, Dicebot wrote:
It is hard to argue that but I have never encountered any issues from
actual confusion between struct and class in C++ (because there isn't
any real difference), only from misusage of virtual types.
Misusage of virtual types is the confusion.
1. Want to switch between a class and a struct? You've got lots of
editing to do.
I'd prefer to do lot of editing as opposed to lot of reading through to
not introduce silent semantical bugs - which is exactly how switching
between struct and class looks now. This is a major benefit, not an issue.
My experience is the opposite. I've found it quick & easy to attempt different
data structures in D because of the minimal editing. In C++, I (and I suspect
most people) just go with their first design because it is too much of a pain to
edit all the usages.
That is what I've dubbed "brittleness". One way I was able to quickly achieve
speed in Warp was it was easy to try out different data structures. Much, much
easier than in C++. The end result could be done in C++, but getting there would
probably not have happened.
2. You'd have to invent a way to do 'alias ref MyClass T;'
No way. `typedef int* p_int_t` is one of worst popular C idioms in my
opinion. Typing extra three letters is a very minor price for having a
code which looks like what it does.
You'd have to give up on writing generic code, then.
Well, languages that simply declare everything a reference (JS) or
dropped support for inheritance based polymorphism (Go, Rust) are much
more consistent in that regard in my opinion :)
JS and Go throw a lot of capability under the bus in order to achieve
consistency. It's a high price. I don't know enough about Rust to say what their
tradeoffs here really are.
There isn't much point in discussin details at this point as the ship
has long sailed. But I definitely consider this one of underdesigned
parts of D language.
True dat.
