On Friday, 15 July 2016 at 09:29:27 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 20:12:13 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
And please note that this horrible excuse is propagate in the
C++ community too. Time and time again people claim that C++
is complex, but it has to be like that in order to provide the
features it provides.
Not true for C++.
Not true for D.
Your suggestion for static analysis goes the same way: static
analysis is way more complex than D currently is, but you
suggest it must be this complex?
Not sure what you mean.
1. It is more time consuming to write an analysis engine that can
cover convoluted machinery than simple machinery.
2. It it more difficult to extend complex machinery than simple
machinery.
3. It is more work to figure out adequate simple machinery to
describe complex machinery, than just keeping things simple from
the start.
Not very surprising that experienced language designers try to
keep the core language as simple as possible?
