On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:36:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
I agree that the problem is difficult but disagree with the angle. This
is not the challenge, and it is not only mine to take. To the extent
we're interested in making D a successful language, we're all on the
same boat, so the challenge belongs to us all.
Adding a new type constructor to the language or generally a new feature
is always possible, but has a high cost. Half of the community throws
their hand in the air with each new feature, and the other half throws
them in the air for each feature that could have been. The key is to
navigate such that as many good designs are expressible as easily as
possible.
The real challenge is to solve the problem within the global set of
constraints we have, not to prove that a language feature would solve
it. I know a language feature would take care of the issue, the same way
money would take care of buying a nice house. The challenge is to have a
nice house when money _is_ limited.
IMO opinion, the cost of modifying the language so that a library solution
that half-solves the problem is possible, in order to create a template
that handles all sorts of odd cases is far greater than a new keyword that
would also enable things like tail-const ranges.
To go with your analogy, we own the bank (compiler), we can print our own
money...
-Steve
