d-programming-language.org

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 7/4/11 1:49 PM, eles wrote:
>> I have an idea - how about the notation Uncircular!uint to designate
>> such a type?
>> Andrei
>
> Either put it into the standard language, either I have a better one.
> what about dropping printf and start using:
>
> mov  ah, 9
> int  0x21
>
> instead?
>
> I am sure it can be done. So, why not dropping all D and start to
> code back into assembler?
>
> The point is that "it can be done even if the current context" is a
> shallow excuse for rejecting better ways to achieve something.
>
> BTW, I really look forward to show me an piece of D code that
> *cannot* be done in assembler. Then, I ensure you, I will stop
> looking for better alternatives to existing ones.

I don't see much merit in the comparison with assembler. Beyond that, 
it's a tad assuming that you presuppose you have an understanding of the 
superiority of automated bounds checking, whereas others are unable to 
get to the same understanding.

Automatic built-in overflow checking is a choice in the language design 
space that has distinct consequences. It's easy to execute in the 
compiler so the entry barrier is low. To claim that language designers 
who didn't go that way simply missed the point makes for a weak story.


Andrei