Should we remove int[$] before 2.067?

Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Jan 30 23:19:46 PST 2015


On 1/30/15 11:00 PM, eles wrote:
> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 18:08:15 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
>> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 14:47:22 UT
>
>> We don't want the situation of C++ where people only use 80% of it's
>> features and that 80% is different for everyone. I've recently been
>> writing some Go code and it's become clear to me just how big of a
>> language D really is.
>
> You miss one point here. C++  is not despised for being complete, but
> for being ugly. Is not features in it that are too many, but the quirks.
>
> Add more quirks to D instead of a lean syntax. This way you will end
> with C++.
>
> You guys should watch again The last thing D needs. Library syntax shows
> 'it can be done' but *as a quirk*
>
> Frankly, you can already do *everything* just by typing 'asm', isn't?
> You really want to stay there?
>
> Everytime I follow the process managemnt and decision in D, it looks to
> me like IndburIII-esque:
>
> 'To him, a stilted geometric love of arrangement was "system," an
> indefatigable and feverish interest in the pettiest facets of day-to-day
> bureaucracy was "industry," indecision when right was "caution," and
> blind stubbornness when wrong, "determination."'
>
> It is one thing to thrieve for caution and determination. But another
> thing to get those in the right way.
>
> Right now, guys, you are going on the wrong road. Being conservative
> when wrong and revolutionary when wrong too.

How is anything about specifying the length of a constant array 
revolutionary?

> Certainly, you end up by being both conservative and revolutionary. But,
> neither when it is needed.
>
> I really support the syntax. Because makes one quirk less.

Special syntax for a niche case instead of using a function... looks one 
quirk more, not less.


Andrei



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list