Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[deadalnix]

Le 07/03/2012 04:05, Bill a écrit :
> F i L Wrote:
>
>> I personally find it much easier to remember and use longer, more
>> sentance-like method names. However, Jonathan and others
>> obviously feel more comfortable writing with a high level of
>> abbreviation, which they justify rather well. Still, if D's goal
>> is to gain popularity, I think it should take notices of other
>> rising languages like C#.
>>
>> The problem with making any change to Phobos is backwards
>> compatibility. So, what if there was a way to satisfy both
>> parties and keep backwards compatibility? Is there any compelling
>> reason why simply wrapping Phobos into a different format would
>> be such bad thing? Meaning:
>>
>>       // system.io
>>
>>       private import std.stdio;
>>
>>       alias write   Write;
>>       alias writeln WriteLine;
>>       // etc...
>>
>> Besides keeping things in-sync and error messages referring to
>> the original function names (which could be amended), I don't see
>> why such a library couldn't be written as a way to make the
>> language easier to swallow to potential D users coming from
>> Java/C#. Microsoft used similar tactics with J#/F# to help the
>> Java/Python folks adapt their code to .NET.
>
> good idea ! can refer to the java c # naming specification, to work out d own naming specification
>
> good luck��
> Bill

This is an horrible idea. That make code easier to write, and harder to 
read. Some language beat D at this game, consider PERL, which is close 
to write only.