The "no gc" crowd

Dicebot public at dicebot.lv
Tue Oct 8 13:41:43 PDT 2013


On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 19:52:32 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 10/8/13 10:00 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>> proper performance
>
> I apologize for picking out your post, Dicebot, as the 
> illustrative example, but I see this pop up in various 
> discussion and I've been meaning to comment on it for a while.
>
> Please stop using words like 'proper', 'real', and other 
> similar terms to describe a requirement. It's a horrible 
> specifier and adds no useful detail.
>
> It tends to needlessly setup the convarsation as 
> confrontational or adversarial and implies that anyone that 
> disagrees is wrong or not working on a real system.  There's 
> lots of cases where pushing to the very edge of bleeding isn't 
> actually required.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad

What wording would you suggest to use? For me "proper" is pretty 
much equal to "meeting requirements / expectations as defined by 
similar projects written in C". It has nothing do with "real" vs 
"toy" projects, just implies that in some domains such 
expectations are more restrictive.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list