Do we really need const?
Bruce Adams
tortoise_74 at yeah.who.co.uk
Mon Sep 17 00:57:26 PDT 2007
Don Clugston Wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
> > It seems from the discussion here the past week, there is no real
> > multithreading benefit to be had from const/invariant. 'Pure' is where
> > it's at for that. So maybe we're just better off without the
> > complexities of const.
>
> I'm thinking the same way. There are clear benefits to 'pure', with both
> multi-threading and optimisation, and it's conceptually simple and easy to
> explain to a newbie. But 'const' seems to be a horrible morass, complicated to
> explain, complicated to code, and with very little benefit.
>
> At the very least, it's clear that 'const' has cost the D community a huge
> amount of discussion bandwidth and mental space, with very little of use to show
> for it. We may be caught in a productivity trap.
>From what I've seen here. Talking in this group all day long doesn't seem to affect productivity that badly. ;)
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list