Which D features to emphasize for academic review article

[Adam Wilson]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 03:38:47 -0700, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 8/11/2012 7:30 AM, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
>> On Saturday, 11 August 2012 at 09:40:39 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Of course it is doing what the language requires, but it is an  
>>> incorrect
>>> diagnostic because a dead assignment is required.
>>>
>>> And being a dead assignment, it can lead to errors when the code is  
>>> later
>>> modified, as I explained. I also dislike on aesthetic grounds  
>>> meaningless code
>>> being required.
>>
>> It is not meaningless, it's declarative. The same resulting code as now  
>> would be
>> generated, but it's easier for the maintainer to understand what's  
>> being meant.
>
> No, it is not easier to understand, because there's no way to determine  
> if the intent is to:
>
> 1. initialize to a valid value -or-
> 2. initialize to get the compiler to stop complaining
>
>
>> I do, however, believe that D programmers are perfectly capable of  
>> doing the
>> right thing if informed.
>
> Of course they are capable of it. But experience shows they simply don't.
>
>
>> Consider `pure` member functions - turns out most of them are actually  
>> pure
>> because the implicit `this` parameter is allowed to be mutated and it's  
>> rare for
>> a member function to mutate global state, yet we all strive to correctly
>> decorate our methods `pure` when applicable.
>
> A better design would be to have pure be the default and impure would  
> require annotation. The same for const/immutable. Unfortunately, it's  
> too late for that now. My fault.
>
>
>> Java exception specifications have widespread implications for the  
>> entire
>> codebase, while the difference between '0' and 'float.nan' is constant  
>> and
>> entirely a local improvement.
>
> I believe there's a lot more potential for success when you have a  
> design where the easiest way is the correct way, and you've got to make  
> some effort to do it wrong. Much of my attitude on that goes back to my  
> experience at Boeing on designing things (yes, my boring Boeing  
> anecdotes again), and Boeing's long experience with pilots and mechanics  
> and what they actually do vs what they're trained to do. (And not only  
> are these people professionals, not fools, but their lives depend on  
> doing it right.)
>
> Over and over and over again, the easy way had better be the correct  
> way. I could bore you even more with the aviation horror stories I heard  
> that justified that attitude.

As a pilot, I completely agree!

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/