D vs nim

[Shachar Shemesh]

On 29/03/18 14:03, Maksim Fomin wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 at 09:45:04 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>>
>> Not so long as destructors don't reliably run.
>>
>> $ rdmd test.d
>> A(1) constructed
>> A(2) constructed
>> A(1) destructed
>> Caught: Constructor failed
>>
>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14246
> 
> Good catch. This is a variant of bug reported 5 years ago. The funny 
> part of this bug is that the fix was reverted ... because of excessive 
> code breakage.
> 
> I like D pretty much and wish to use it in serious code, but I cannot 
> tolerate such sort of things.

I don't think the fix was reverted because fixing the bug breaks code. I 
think the fix was reverted because *it* broke code.

The fix made way too many assumptions that were simply not universally 
true. For example, it would not work with structs with @disable init or 
@disable this().

So, yes, the way D is built it is not easy to properly fix it. That does 
not mean it shouldn't be fixed.

Shachar