preparing for const, final, and invariant

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

bobef wrote:
> Do you think that any user cares about if you use consts in your code or not? This is what I mean when I talk about usability. We write applications not code. We should focus on the usability. If it is easier to write - good, but the application is what is important, no the code (yes, of course it matters too). Plus what consts are you talking about in C++? Just cast them to void* and back to the type without const... If you want to modify it nothing is stopping you, if not just don't do it :)
> 

No, I don't think users care if I use const.  I do think they care if the program runs 
quickly and is stable -- both of which const contributes to, by avoiding unnecessary 
copies of data and pre-empting bugs before they happen.  Yes I can use trickery and break 
the type system to get around it -- but if I'm doing that, there's probably something 
wrong with the design to begin with.  This /is/ aiding library writers, and app writers. 
Once this is done, hopefully the major issues will be the next to get attention.

I really don't think the console is going away anytime soon.  A friend recently needed a 
new log parsing utility.  The one we tossed together in an afternoon in D, on the console, 
finished within minutes -- compared to the old (GUI) app he'd been using that took hours. 
  GUI isn't always a blessing.  (All this program even need as input was a filename. 
Adding GUI to something like that is merely bloat and slowdown.)

Usability is important, I agree.  But software that's quick and easy to write, is also 
quicker and easier to /make/ usable.  And GUI isn't always the answer to usability. 
That's my stance in a tiny overly restrictive nutshell.  (Walnut?  Maybe pecan...)

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls