If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?

[Juan Jose Comellas]

An that's why Java forces you to copy or clone objects all the time, making
it consume tons of memory. And this concept of immutable interfaces is so
ingrained in the JDK's interface that there's not much you can do about it
even if you want to make the effort of avoiding unnecessary copies.


David Medlock wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Tesuji wrote:
[...]
>> I don't understand why either of these would *prevent* effective
>> libraries from being built. Neither enables new programming techniques
>> or paradigms, they are just aids to documentation and debugging.
> 
> I feel the same.  Libraries either
> a) Are passed allocated objects, in which they are allowed to manipulate
> them.  No need for const there(that I can see).
> 
> b) Allocate and return objects/data.  Definitely no need for const there.
> 
> Java has tons of libraries, as does Ruby, and Perl, and C, and tons of
> other libraries without const.  No offenses intended, this is bordering
> on an obsession.
> 
> With garbage collection, I just don't see the HUGE benefits of const....
> -DavidM