Property discussion wrap-up

[Dicebot]

On Monday, 28 January 2013 at 15:44:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> But D aims at general-purpose programming with only tidbits of 
> systems-level code. The pure and @safe features are intended to 
> enable actual reasoning (in the rigorous sense) on portions of 
> programs or entire programs.

I suppose the same applies also for large size general-purpose 
programs. But I have no personal experience in development and/or 
maintenance of those, thus have no rights to push for their 
interests.

I wonder though, what about "pure" for getters and setters? 
Making compiler enforce contract "this function only modifies 
class field and has no side-effects other than that" could have 
solved reasoning issue.

> I understand how you feel though you probably are overstating 
> it. No language can please everyone, and nobody will be pleased 
> by all aspects of a language.

Sure, I have said I am raging when thinking about it, makes me 
overstate :) Hope no offense done. Still, argument "it has worked 
so far" does not really mean that stuff really works good - lack 
of alternatives will also do. There are no perfect languages and 
I will always use something I do not like - because other 
features do matter more.