Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Timon Gehr]

On 03/08/2012 01:08 AM, foobar wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 March 2012 at 21:39:39 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 03/07/2012 09:04 PM, foobar wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 7 March 2012 at 10:08:53 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>> On 03/06/2012 10:30 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> auto helps too.
>>>>
>>>> This remark was explicitly about _Java_ code style.
>>>
>>> Wrong. This is an issue with the *language*, NOT the naming convention.
>>
>> It is hard to imagine how it could be concluded that this is not what
>> the post has expressed.
>
> Come on, do we really need to discuss the difference between a
> programming language and its coding conventions?
> The fact that Java has flaws *as a language* is completely orthogonal to
> the fact that it has an excellent coding convention which can also be
> used with other languages such as D.
>
> One of the reasons for Java's success is its code style despite being a
> simplistic language. It might be painful to write "duration" instead of
> "dur" when working on your own pet project but it's in a different story
> when dealing with large enterprise systems. IMO D will not catch on in a
> larger setting (in the enterprise) as long as it refuses to grow up and
> keeps it advocating its 1337 hacker attitude.
>

To make this clear, we agree on the relevant issues. There obviously has 
been a misunderstanding, and it does not make sense to argue about it.