This Week in D #9 - marketing discussion, final beta, special interview with Sönke

[ponce via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 16 March 2015 at 13:11:56 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
>> An example of a simple but fundamental issue are the defaults 
>> of the built-in attributes. I think some of them, for 
>> historical or compatibility reasons, are currently simply the 
>> wrong way around (pure, @safe, final and scope should really 
>> all be enabled by default, with scope providing recursive 
>> guarantees) and using them properly completely destroys the 
>> initial idea of having a clean language syntax. It's sometimes 
>> really sad to see modern idiomatic D code degrading into a 
>> mess of attributes and contract syntax noise. After all, a 
>> clean syntax used to be one of the key selling points.
>
> +1 for this entire paragraph, sometimes D looks simple and 
> elegant, other times it looks like someone puked attributes.

Rust code is safe by default and it is littered with unsafe{ } 
blocks.
It is also immutable by default and it is littered with the 'mut' 
keyword.

I think D absolutely choose the good defaults everytime but some 
attribute don't buy enough compared to the line-noise they 
generate.

For these reasons I mostly ignore pure, nothrow, @safe, immutable 
etc... in routine code and only put them when the code is 
especially reusable and somehow won't change much.

Since D1 I really value the ability to make bad code quickly in 
time-contrained situations.