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