Are there any default dmd optimizations

[Walter Bright]

On 2/25/2013 2:00 PM, foobar wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 February 2013 at 22:28:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> By baking one scheme into the language, people will rarely feel a need to
>> reinvent the wheel, and will go on to more productive uses of their time.
> This is a fallacy caused by the "culture" of c++ programmers - there is exactly
> *zero* benefit in baking this into the language.

On the contrary, I think it has turned out rather well. Another success story of 
baking certain things into the language is Ddoc. Unittest is a third. They've 
been big wins for D.

None of those strictly has to be in the language - they can be done by 
convention and 3rd party tools. Nevertheless, convenience, standardization and 
mechanical enforcement of a convention seem to work better than applying 
religious zeal to enforce a convention.


> All of this is to say, that instead of trying to "fix" the c++ culture in D, we
> should try to create a *better* D culture.

We do have a significantly better D culture than the C++ one. For example, C++ 
relies heavily and unapologetically on convention for writing correct, robust 
code. D eschews that, and instead is very biased towards mechanical verification.


>  In fact there are many such "not c++"
> features in D and which is why I find other languages such as rust a *much*
> better design and it evolves much faster because it is designed in terms of -
> what we want to achieve, how best to implement that.

How does rust handle this particular issue?