@property - take it behind the woodshed and shoot it?

deadalnix deadalnix at gmail.com
Sun Jan 27 05:56:52 PST 2013


On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 13:42:33 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 January 2013 at 13:24:31 UTC, TommiT wrote:
>> But, joking aside, I think that all hate against optional 
>> parentheses stems from the increase of ambiguity they 
>> indisputably cause. However, let's imagine a future where your 
>> perfect D IDE paints function calls red, and variables blue. 
>> Then, it will be obvious to you which identifiers are 
>> variables and which are function calls based on their color. 
>> In this situation it will feel silly to have to write those 
>> empty parentheses, because they don't make the code any less 
>> ambiguous (it's already perfectly unambiguous because of the 
>> colors) and, infact, those empty parentheses make the code (a 
>> bit) harder to read.
>
> If we require clever IDE to distinguish visually something as 
> basic as data semantics and callable semantics it is an 
> indicator language design is screwed. Relying on IDE features 
> is what made Java unusable for expressive, robust code. I may 
> use an IDE help when I need to learn architecture level 
> connections in new project, but at scope level semantics for 
> reader should be perfectly clear and unambiguous even if opened 
> in notepad.
>
> 2 cents from vim user and optional parens hater here.

You're being an extremist here. From a vim user and automagic 
function call hater as well ;)

First many reliable code have been written in Java. Quite a lot 
of it in fact. And refusing IDE help make no real sense. Even vim 
is an IDE, and not a simple editor.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list