Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?
acehreli at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 9 23:13:00 UTC 2023
On 2/9/23 14:34, ProtectAndHide wrote:
> You mentioned previously that D implements various things in
> unprincipled ways.
I think you will continue misunderstanding that term. What it means is,
D does not insist on certain programming paradigms over others. For
example, you can code in structured, functional, object-oriented, etc.
styles depending on your problem.
> I guess, if one wants to use D, one has to be comfortable with this.
I can't see how being free is something that one needs to be comfortable
with but I guess you are correct.
> But using a relaxed attitude towards the implementation of such a common
> and important abstraction, that in turn allows me to so easily shoot
> myself in the foot, is not really an attractive feature .. to me ;-)
Thanks for the wink.
> btw. When a newbie to D raises ideas, suggestions, etc... and you
> counter them with (in essence)
That is not the essence at all! There has been numerous responses here
before I reminded how the path is actually open for language changes.
> 'we don't need that in D, but go write a
> dip if you think we do' attitude, is a real turn off.
What was the alternative? Jumping to implementations of all suggested
features? A bigger turn off would be forkit!
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn