A nice way to step into 2012

foobar foo at bar.com
Wed Dec 28 00:11:09 PST 2011

On Wednesday, 28 December 2011 at 00:21:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2011 14:07:25 Jakob Ovrum wrote:
>> And it is indeed very important. It's one of the few syntax 
>> woes
>> we have to deal with in D, it would be a shame to let the
>> benefits of std.algorithm and any other functional D code be
>> overshadowed by the powerful but often excessive syntax of
>> anonymous functions.
> I find this sort of discussion to be somewhat funny. I don't 
> think that it's a problem that D has added a new lambda syntax, 
> but what we've had _so_ much better than C++ 98 that I never 
> really cared. Sure, putting the return in there and all that is 
> a bit verbose, but at least we have lambdas! I almost never use 
> the algorithms in C++, because you have to define separate 
> functors elsewhere. You don't even get nested functions! So, 
> I've never seen much reason to complain about D's verbose 
> lambda syntax, because it's so nice to have what we have rather 
> than be forced to create functors and the like.
> So, this is certainly a welcome change, but I've also found it 
> kind of odd that some people have been complaining about it so 
> much. Most of them probably aren't C++ programmers.
> - Jonathan M Davis

So your argument basically boils down to: "I find it funny that 
car owners (Non C++ programmers) complain about bicycles not 
being fast enough. I mean, it's way better than walking 
(Programming in C++)"

I fail to understand what's odd about that.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list