Rather D1 then D2

Henrik henrik at nothing.com
Sat Sep 22 19:04:41 UTC 2018


On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 15:45:09 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 15:25:32 UTC, aberba wrote:
>> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 14:31:20 UTC, Jonathan 
>> Marler wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:25:27 UTC, rikki 
>>> cattermole wrote:
>>>> Then D isn't the right choice for you.
>>>
>>> I think it makes for a better community if we can be more 
>>> welcoming, helpful a gracious instead of responding to 
>>> criticism this way. This is someone who saw enough potential 
>>> with D to end up on the forums but had some gripes with it, 
>>> after all who doesn't? I'm glad he took the initiative to 
>>> provide us with good feedback, and he's not the first to take 
>>> issue with the inconsistent '@' attribute syntax.  I'm sure 
>>> everyone can agree this inconsistency is less than ideal but 
>>> that doesn't mean D isn't right for them and we should 
>>> respond this feedback like this with thanks rather than 
>>> dismissal.
>>
>> That inconsistency is an issue for me. I wish there a clear 
>> decision to make things consistent.
>
> Yeah there's been alot of discussion around it over the years, 
> which is why I put this together about 4 years ago:
>
> https://wiki.dlang.org/Language_Designs_Explained#Function_attributes
>
> Gosh I've forgotten how long I've been using D.

Interesting article.

"int safe = 0; // This code would break if "safe" was added as a 
keyword"

My question here: why didn't D use a similar solution as C when 
dealing with these things? Look at the introduction of the bool 
datatype in C99. They created the compiler reserved type "_Bool" 
and put "typedef _Bool bool" in "stdbool.h". The people wanting 
to use this new feature can include this header, and other can 
leave it be. No ugly "@" polluting the language on every line 
where it's used. Wouldn't a similar solution have been possible 
in D?



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list