D vs nim

[matovitch via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 at 10:09:15 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 April 2015 at 06:31:08 UTC, Jadbox wrote:
>>> btw : I think D should get rid off un-bracketed if statement, 
>>> program king is not about sparing the number of lines...but 
>>> that’s again a matter of taste.
>>
>> I'm that guy on the other side of the fence. I view unbracked 
>> IFs as an essential part of concise code readability. Brackets 
>> are the symbolization of a block of logic, meaning multiple 
>> steps of logic. Being forced to express "this is a block of 
>> code" for just a single statement after an IF seems bloaty and 
>> hurts scanning through code. I also feel reducing line numbers 
>> is something to strive for as long as no readability is 
>> sacrifices.
>
> +1. I personally think that whenever you use unbracketed if the 
> statement should be on the same line as the if - but that 
> should be checked by configurable style-checkers, not by the 
> compiler.
>
> I also don't like the idea of introducing these kinds of 
> breaking changes when the language is supposed to be stable. 
> Enforcing some best practices from the beginning of the 
> language is beneficial, since I can be sure all code written in 
> that language uses these best practices. But if such best 
> practices are introduced when the language claims to be stable, 
> forcing me to go all over my project to make sure it complies 
> to it, and then forking some of the dependencies' repositories 
> so I can do the same with them(only this time it's code that 
> I'm unfamiliar with) - I'll seriously consider if migrating my 
> project to a more stable language might actually be less work 
> in the long run, considering that more breaking changes like 
> this might be introduced in the future.

Please I wouldn't like to divert this thread into a 
bracketed/un-bracked flame war...In fact I mostly don't care. In 
fact if people like it thats probably the good choice, I just 
like to got only one way to do it *syntax-wise*. But please talk 
about feature, I regret my '.btw:' section.