First Impressions!

[Kagamin]

On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 03:01:33 UTC, A Guy With an 
Opinion wrote:
> - Attributes. I had another post in the Learn forum about 
> attributes which was unfortunate. At first I was excited 
> because it seems like on the surface it would help me write 
> better code, but it gets a little tedious and tiresome to have 
> to remember to decorate code with them.

Then do it the C# way. There's choice.

> I think the better decision would be to not have the errors 
> occur.

Hehe, I'm not against living in an idea world either.

> - Immutable. I'm not sure I fully understand it. On the surface 
> it seemed like const but transitive. I tried having a method 
> return an immutable value, but when I used it in my unit test I 
> got some weird errors about objects not being able to return 
> immutable (I forget the exact error...apologies).

That's the point of static type system: if you make a mistake, 
the code doesn't compile.

> +- Unicode support is good. Although I think D's string type 
> should have probably been utf16 by default. Especially 
> considering the utf module states:
>
> "UTF character support is restricted to '\u0000' <= character 
> <= '\U0010FFFF'."
>
> Seems like the natural fit for me.

UTF-16 in inadequate for range '\u0000' <= character <= 
'\U0010FFFF', though. UCS2 was adequate (for '\u0000' <= 
character <= '\uFFFF'), but lost relevance. UTF-16 is only 
backward compatibility for early adopters of unicode based on 
UCS2.

> Plus for the vast majority of use cases I am pretty guaranteed 
> a char = codepoint.

That way only end users will be able to catch bugs in production 
system. It's not the best strategy, is it? Text is often 
persistent data, how do you plan to fix a text handling bug when 
corruption accumulated for years and spilled all over the place?