Does D have too many features?
Nick Sabalausky
SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com
Sun Apr 29 03:59:21 PDT 2012
"Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nvvuxboigxxfdqfhyftw at forum.dlang.org...
>
> To be honest, I don't like the idea of member functions at all. Having two
> syntaxes for calling a function is the core problem, and UFCS is just an
> extra complication on top of it to try and mitigate the original problem.
>
> f(x) ---> x.f() is not progress in language design.
[...]
> I'm serious. I don't like overloaded syntax. foo.bar shouldn't also mean
> (*foo).bar -- it causes confusion and introduces ambiguities when either
> could work. Combine this with opDispatch, UFCS and function overloading
> and your in for some nasty headaches.
[...]
>
> Glancing at that code, it looks like foo has two member variables. It is
> also not clear that each access involves a hash-table lookup.
It sounds like you just simply don't like abstractions. I can understand
that (although I don't agree with it), but it always puzzles me why such
people even try to use high-level langauges at all instead of just binary
machine code.
And for the record, I've *never* seen anyone confused by foo.bar syntax
being used on reference types.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list