On 8/1/11 7:56 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 1/08/11 7:29 PM, Kagamin wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Now on reddit!
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/j48tf/how_is_c_better_than_d/
C++ has a better thought out type system.
Nice joke.
http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/c-at-google-here-be-dragons.html
Please read my note at the end. I believe D (probably) has a better type
system. It just wasn't very well though out.
I believe many aspects of D's type system were added in without fully
exploring the ramifications they had on other parts of the language. There are
at least two pieces of evidence which support my belief:
1. The fact that you can't copy const struct objects containing reference
types.
2. The fact that the root object still isn't const correct.
C++ has some questionable choices for its type system, but it generally
doesn't prevent you from getting work done.
You're mixing state of implementation with design of the type system.
Easy enough to conflate, but still a conflation of issues.
Don't get me wrong, that there's QOI issues still is a real problem. I'd
also agree that it's in the top 10 list of real problems. I don't know
that I'd make it #1 on the list, though. Please don't ask me what my #1
issue is, it varies from week to week. :)
Until the QOI issues are worked out, or at least reduced significantly,
it's not clear that we'll be able to make any strong statements about the
quality of the design.
Later,
Brad
Good point, particularly when you compare it with the QOI issues in C++
as it was maturing. And the design, too. There were times when e.g.
nobody knew when an object ought to be destroyed.
Andrei
