D-etractions A real world programmers view on D
SomeDude
lovelydear at mailmetrash.com
Mon Aug 27 16:13:53 PDT 2012
On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 22:40:56 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:36:08 +0200
> "SomeDude" <lovelydear at mailmetrash.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 00:20:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> > On 08/25/2012 01:58 AM, Pragma Tix wrote:
>> >> ----was Andrew McKinlay is trying D for Suneido.
>> >>
>> >> http://thesoftwarelife.blogspot.fr/2012/08/d-etractions.html
>> >>
>> >> You do not necessarily have to agree with Andrew, but this
>> >> is a
>> >> pragmatic developer's view. Let me say that Andrew has
>> >> created his own
>> >> database system (Relational Algebra based) , his own
>> >> language (Ruby
>> >> like) and his own application frame work. Finally he is
>> >> using his Tools
>> >> to create real world software.. i.e. Trucking/Transport /
>> >> Accounting etc.
>> >>
>> >> IMO a voice, D core developers should listen to.
>> >>
>> >> Bjoern
>> >
>> > His post comes down to: "I like to have an IDE and I prefer
>> > Java
>> > because I already know Java."
>> > This is perfectly fine of course, but why would this be
>> > relevant for D
>> > development?
>>
>> No, he points out that 1) templates inherently complexify code
>> 2) make refactoring difficult, especially automated
>> refactoring, something that is supported by major modern IDEs
>> and not by text editors like vim/emacs, because the former
>> have some knowledge of the AST, not the latter.
>> I know the first point is debatable; maybe there is less need
>> for refactoring as the language is more expressive, but when
>> refactoring is needed, it's probably much more difficult than
>> in Java/C#, especially without the help of tools.
>
> FWIW: Personally, I would argue that (as nice as automated
> refactoring
> admittedly is) putting up with a simplistic less expressive
> language for
> the sake of niceties like (perfect) automated refactoring is
> putting the
> cart before the horse. It'd be like putting up with starvation
> because
> you can't find a salad marked "organic". Having automated
> refactoring be
> less-than-perfect is a price, yes, but it's a very small price
> to pay
> for the much bigger savings you get from having powerful
> metaprogramming.
>
> Plus, certain non-automatic refactorings would be a much bigger
> pain in
> something like Java anyway because of, for example, the lack of
> type
> inference and the increased need for code to be non-generic in
> the first
> place.
>
> My $0.02, anyway.
I mostly agree, although some basic refactoring like a simple
renaming is also very handy.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list