Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?
ProtectAndHide at gmail.com
Mon Feb 6 20:56:48 UTC 2023
On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 08:26:45 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> In contrast, D delivers some features in an unprincipled way
> and the programmers use combinations of those features the way
> the see fit.
I agree, that D is unprincipled in many ways, and this is perhaps
the biggest surprise for new comers from other 'principled'
But is that a design goal for D?
> I really don't care if D had 'static class' to be used only as
> a namespace but I don't see how this issue is terrible....
If you've ever programmed in C#, you've use static classes, and
you've used them many times, and you'll continue to use them.
If D implemented the same abstraction as easily as C#, then C#
programmers would find it easier to migrate code to D, perhaps.
That's not a request, just an observation. And no, I'm not going
to 'go write a DIP'.
Of course, if I was talking about migrating C code, you'd all be
stumbling over yourselves to make that happen - .. build it, and
they still won't come ;-)
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn