DIP62: Volatile type qualifier for unoptimizable variables in embedded programming

[Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d]

"Johannes Pfau"  wrote in message news:lq51u4$21qb$1 at digitalmars.com...

> But it's not only about frequency, it's also about convenience and
> safety. How often is opDispatch actually used? The synchronized
> statement? Nevertheless they are there, because someone thought these
> use cases are important enough.

None of those affect the type system, this does.  If it could be added as a 
storage class or even a new statement (!) it would be less intrusive.

> The perceived importance of a special qualifier for MMIO code is highly
> subjective, but I think that most embedded programmers would say it's
> necessary. In Andrei's Leverage talk he said (5:57): "Consider this:
> Convenience, modeling power, efficiency: [...] You gonna have to have a
> large language. This is a fact of life. [...]". We have
> weak pure/ strong pure & immutable for functional programming, A
> complete set of OO primitives, builtin unit tests, code coverage, ... I
> think it's a correct argument to say that you think embedded system
> programming is not important enough for the additional complexity
> introduced by a new qualifier.

The problem is not 'this feature is too complex', the problems is that it's 
more complex than necessary.