On 8/23/2018 2:09 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:58, Joakim wrote:
Because you've not listed any here, which makes you no better than some noob
Here's one: the forum does not respond well to criticism.
Not sure what you mean by that.
* Features not playing well together.
Despite what Joakim seems to think, I've actually brought up an example in this
thread. Here is another one:
functions may be @safe, nothrow, @nogc, pure. If it's a method it might also be
const/inout/immutable, static. The number of libraries that support all
combinations is exactly zero (e.g. - when passing a delegate in).
If, for example, a library functions allocates with the gc, then it can't work
with @nogc code. But still, fair enough - if there are combinations which should
work, but do not, please submit bug reports. If you have already, is there a
list of them?
* Language complexity
Raise your hand if you know how a class with both opApply and the get/next/end
functions behaves when you pass it to foreach.
> How about a struct?
I presume you meant empty/front/popFront.
This is in the language spec:
https://dlang.org/spec/statement.html#foreach-with-ranges
"If the aggregate expression is a struct or class object, but the opApply for
foreach, or opApplyReverse foreach_reverse do not exist, then iteration over
struct and class objects can be done with range primitives."
This was done for backward compatibility, since empty/front/popFront came later.
I actually tried to deprecate opApply at one point, but that would have broken
too much existing code. But I'm puzzled why one would write a struct with both
iteration mechanisms.
Does it matter if it allows copying or not?
For the preference for opApply, no.
The language was built because C++ was deemed too complex! Please see the thread
about lazy [1] for a case where a question actually has an answer, but nobody
seems to know it (and the person who does know it is hard pressed to explain the
nuance that triggers this).
C++ doesn't have lazy. Lazy in D is a rarely used feature, so I'm not surprised
there is less institutional knowledge about it, and it hasn't been thrashed as
much as other features.
* Critical bugs aren't being solved
People keep advertising D as supporting RAII. I'm sorry, but "supports RAII"
means "destructors are always run when the object is destroyed". If the
community (and in this case, this includes Walter) sees a bug where that doesn't
happen as not really a bug, then there is a deep problem, at least,
over-promising. Just say you don't support RAII and destructors are unreliable
and live with the consequences.
If you're referring to #14246, I posted a PR for it. I don't see how that is
pretending it isn't a problem. It is.
* The community
Oh boy.
Someone who carries weight needs to step in when the forum is trying to squash
down on criticism. For Mecca, I'm able to do that [2], but for D, this simply
doesn't happen.
If someone is trying to squash criticism, I would like to see what you're
referring to. If a post contains unprofessional behavior, like using f--k or
harassing people, it will get removed. Simply being critical is not removed (if
it was, this this thread would have disappeared).
