C++ UFCS update

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 24 February 2016 at 22:55:11 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> You misunderstand what that part of the sentence refers to. 
> (It's what I quoted.)

This is what you quoted:

«I find it ironic that Walter objects to reusing operators such 
as "<<"  while he is reusing "!" for templates»


> You might want to keep those aspects to yourself or express

You don't get to tell me what I want or do not want to express. 
You're an obnoxious kid. :-)


> their subjectivity more explicitly if you don't want them to be

"I find it ironic".

What more do you need?


> In the context of C, "*" means either "dereference" or 
> "multiply". "&" means either "take address" or "bitwise and".

And D blindly copies those mistakes. How does C's mistakes have 
any relevance to this?


> Also, I'm not defending anything. I was attacking annoying 
> rhetoric.

I find it ironic that you keep trying to make your own 
subjectivity look objective when it is rather obvious that your 
are engaging in blatant advocacy which just sement the idea that 
the design rationale behind D2's syntax is sound. It isn't. It 
breaks with basic usability principles.

The usability of D is not improving, and complaining about other 
languages' minor issues won't fix it. There is way too much 
resistance to fixing the language, both interface and semantics. 
That keeps D at a hobby level.

Or to put it bluntly: C, C++ and Rust having crappy syntaxes does 
not make D look a whole lot better. In order to do better, you 
have to be better. C/C++ are bogged down with legacy. There is no 
reason for D to be.

What keeps D from improving comes down to this: stubborn 
ignorance.

Offensive, but true.