Carmack about static analysis
Derek
ddparnell at bigpond.com
Sat Dec 24 07:54:37 PST 2011
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 02:33:01 +1100, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> We recently discussed this a bit in connection with the standard
> library. It definitely could be written in a manner that is easier to
> understand for the more casual reader, but that would mean reducing the
> capabilities (e.g. no reduce with multiple parameters) and making it
> slower.
It's the syntax and not the semantics that troubles me. I'm sure that some
syntax changes could be possible to make readability improvements with no
loss of capabilities.
> ... I personally find contemporary application D code very readable.
> It's a pleasure to get to it after using C++ at work.
I'm sure you are totally correct; I'm not really a C++ coder. And I'm sure
you also process the specialist/expert level of D knowledge to make
reading contemporary D code a non-issue. But when compared to spoken
language text, D code can appear quite obtuse to average coders. And I
believe this is main do to the very high use of non-alphabetic symbols and
a level of overloading of both punctuation characters and reserved words.
> Anyhow, is there anything you have in mind that we have the chance of
> improving at this point?
I have nothing concrete right now, and I suspect nothing that a C/C++/D
aficionado would appreciate, so I'll remain silent about this and try
harder to appreciate D syntax. There is no point in starting
bike-shed/flame-wars about syntax issues. I understand Walter's viewpoints
on the desire for C compatibility and on the use of reserved words.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list