Just because it's a slow Thursday on this forum

Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Feb 11 06:55:49 PST 2016


On 02/10/2016 02:47 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 02:32:37PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 02/10/2016 02:25 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> I see no non-trivial cost.
>>
>> I, to, am not getting the cost story. H.S. Teoh, could you please
>> substantiate? -- Andrei
>
> Sorry, I meant technical debt.  My point was that this function needs to
> provide more value than what's effectively just an alias for
> writefln("%s, %s, %s", x, y, z).
>

Having used an equivalent to the proposed "dump" for many years (and an 
inferior equivalent at that), I can attest that it definitely provides 
sufficient value over write* functions. With write*, there's always 
either excess verbosity that just gets in the way of my "flow", or I can 
opt the succinct route and wind up looking at a dump of numbers finding 
it difficult to know what number is what variable. Any homemade 
wrapper/alias only creates even MORE work when trying to use it. Anyone 
may be skeptical of the reasons, but it doesn't matter because again, 
this is all direct personal experience, not hypothetical theorizing.

In short: Yes. Yes it does provide sufficient value. And the "technical 
debt" is still vastly less than the time, effort and bother of having to 
defend yet another clear improvement on the D perpetual debate forums.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list