On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 09:47:48 UTC, Bauss wrote:
On Thursday, 26 January 2017 at 00:02:03 UTC, Profile Anaysis wrote:
Many times we pass compound types(non-primitives) as arguments to functions.

[...]

This is going to be a no from me. It's just another syntactic sugar that doesn't really have a purpose, but more syntactic confusion. We have enough of that stuff in D if you ask me.

Do you realize

1. That without change there can be no progress?

2. Everything is syntactic sugar. The only way to increase efficiency is to create higher level abstractions.

If people with your mentality rules the world we would still be using sticks and stones. This is a fact... I won't argue whether it would be the best thing or not.

At any point in the progress of humans people can say and do say what effectively what you are saying.

Without people ignoring you and pushing the boundaries humanity would not be where it is at.

e.g., "I disagree, punch cards are all we need.". "Tubes can do anything. There is no use in trying to control them with automation, we have hands for that". "The stone wheel has served us for centuries, it has proven reliability. There is no need to try to make it better".

Because you think such a syntax(one that hasn't even been created yet) will somehow be detrimental to your progress is insanity.

1. You have no way to judge the syntax since it hasn't been created yet. Hence you have to be against all syntactic sugar, which I already pointed out, is everything. Hence you are actually against progress in the big picture, including your own.

2. You are not forced to use syntax extensions. If you are able to continue doing exactly what you did before there should be no need to be against it. It's like saying you are against cars because you want to walk. Well, no one is stopping you from walking by them having a car.

[Your only argument is that the syntax(e.g., the car) is detrimental to you in some innate way that it's mere existence forces you to be have in an undesirable way. This isn't an argument though as I could use the reverse for my side. (e.g., I need a car to do things I need to do)].




Reply via email to