What is the case against a struct post-blit default constructor?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 22:40:50 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> D's use of init is far superior to either C++ or Java's approach IMHO. But
> regardless of its various pros or cons, it's here to stay.

Something to remember here is that there are multiple ways to solve some of 
these problems. Each has their pros and cons. D has gone with init and IMHO 
greatly from it. You can undoubtedly find alternate ways to deal with pretty 
much every use case for init. After all, other languages went with other 
solutions (each with their own pros and cons). But init is what D chose to go 
with, so regardless of whether it's the best choice or not, it's what we have, 
and it's far too late to change it now.

So, while you may prefer another solution, because you prefer a different set 
of pros and cons, that doesn't mean that D's choice was a bad one. It just 
means that what it prioritizes isn't necessarily the same as what you 
prioritize.

- Jonathan M Davis