On 10/29/10 12:15 CDT, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu ([email protected])'s
Any tie-breaking arguments, I'm all ears.
Andrei
Uh...How about that if people want C++, they know where to find it? I think
familiarity to C++ programmers is The Wrong Reason (TM) to allow arbitrary cost
copy construction. Furthermore, I don't see crufty old C++ programmers as being
more important to D than people from other backgrounds. I see D users coming
from
a variety of backgrounds:
1. Crufty old C/C++ programmers.
2. People who like dynamic languages but need more speed and ability to do
low-level work. D is about the most flexible
close-to-the-metal/efficient/statically typed language out there.
3. Java/C# programmers who want a language that isn't absurdly verbose.
4. New programmers who don't have much already invested in any other language
and
want something advanced, modern and w/o tons of legacy cruft.
The first **may** want eager copying. The latter three almost certainly won't.
Not all C++ programmers are crufty and old :o). Anyhow, there are other
advantages to arbitrary cost copy construction, as I specified. For what
it's worth, if eliminating it made things overall easier, C++
programmers would have loved it. It's the liabilities I'm worried about.
Andrei
