The "no gc" crowd

[Sean Kelly]

On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:48 AM, "Dicebot" <public at dicebot.lv> wrote:
> 
>> On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 23:22:54 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Walter Bright
>>> This, of course, is the other problem with @nogc. Having a forest of attributes on otherwise ordinary functions is awfully ugly.
>> 
>> And we already have a forest of attributes on otherwise ordinary functions.
> 
> I don't understand why there is such reluctance to have many attributes. I'd gladly accept language with literally hundreds of those if they are orthogonal and useful. That is the very point of using strong typed language - making compiler verify as much assumptions as possible for you. Key problem here is not amount of attributes but that those are opt-in, not opt-out,

They aren't opt-out for really any reasonable project though, because code is reused and those people may want at least the standard attributes to be set. Personally, the array of attributes that can be applied to a D function is one of my biggest pet peeves with the language. It gains me nothing personally, and adds a lot of extra thought to the process of writing a function.