A better way to deal with overloading?

Profile Anaysis via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Jan 27 17:52:50 PST 2017


On Friday, 27 January 2017 at 12:44:30 UTC, rjframe wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:38:53 +0000, Profile Anaysis wrote:
>
>> Do you realize
>> 
>> 1. That without change there can be no progress?
>> 
>> ...
>> If people with your mentality rules the world we would still 
>> be using
>> sticks and stones. This is a fact... I won't argue whether it 
>> would be
>> the best thing or not.
>
> Please argue for your proposal on its merit, not by criticizing 
> the people who disagree. It can be difficult to 
> communicate/work with strangers -- all we have is respect and 
> the benefit of the doubt, and cannot afford to lose either.
>

I can only argue on the merit when the criticism is of the actual 
problem, not of unrelated assumptions.

e.g., How can you or Bauss argue against what I have said when I 
haven't said much. In fact, since Bauss was against it without 
even really hearing or understanding it(the syntax, since that is 
what he said he was against), and C99 already implements such a 
thing, it proves my point that he is just being a nay-Sayer. It's 
good enough for the c99 committee but not him?

You are following in his shoes though. Instead of arguing on the 
actual concept proposed you are creating noise. All I can say, is 
take your own advice.


> You'd have a much better chance of getting a language change by 
> a) getting a couple of people who agree with you to write a 
> quality DIP, and b) listening to the criticism of those who 
> disagree to refine the proposal (or in this specific case, find 
> that it's not necessary (Alexandru Ermicioi's code)).

Criticism must come from reason, not fear.

>> Because you think such a syntax(one that hasn't even been 
>> created yet) will somehow be detrimental to your progress is 
>> insanity.
>> 
>> 1. You have no way to judge the syntax since it hasn't been 
>> created yet. Hence you have to be against all syntactic sugar, 
>> which I already pointed out, is everything. Hence you are 
>> actually against progress in the big picture, including your 
>> own.
>
> A language is more than its feature set; language design is 
> about balancing features and constraints. A language that tries 
> to let you do anything and everything would make it too easy to 
> create an unmaintainable mess (e.g., we need constraints either 
> in the language or in the programmer).

Yes, but you haven't said anything about the original concept. 
The above is obvious. Life is full of constraints in everything. 
You could say the same about banking, bout sex, about building a 
bridge, etc.






More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list