On 03/15/2011 10:46 PM, Jens wrote:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 21:29, schrieb Jens:
Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 15.03.2011 21:07, schrieb Jens:
How is it different in D where all polymorphic objects are
reference types? Take have the design space away, make everything
a glorified pointer and things are better?
They obviously are. Successful languages like Java and C# do it.
It's less error-prone and you don't have to worry about
dereferencing stuff all the time (sometimes even multiple
dereferences at once, like in my example).
More toward Java-class-language then than C++-level language.
Sacrificing stack objects was like throwing out sharp knives from
the kitchen. I understand.
If you want value types use structs. Maybe with alias this or mixins
to "extend" them.
Or use emplace (see
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_conv.html ) with classes
if you wanna play with sharp tools.
It's not like you can't (risk to) cut yourself with D, it's just
easier not to.
While the above was off-topic, I was alluding to class objects on the
stack. So not to turn the thread into a critique of the entire language,
I'll leave it at that.
Class objects are possible on stack in D.
