DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Community Review Round 1

[12345swordy]

On Friday, 15 February 2019 at 18:26:34 UTC, Yuxuan Shui wrote:
> Yes, one of my "design goal" is to maximize my chance :)

Increasing the chance of this DIP being accepted by avoiding code 
deprecation shouldn't be any DIP design goal. We shouldn't reject 
good design just because it may break people code.

That is THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE WITH THE C++ COMMITTEE! If I were 
so worried about breaking code when introducing new features I 
would use c++! Which guess what? The readability is horrible! So 
god awful! They are STILL stuck with using header files in spite 
of introducing modules! I can go on and on about this, but it be 
pointless, because they have such a religious devotion to 
backwards compatibility that I just gave up on them.

D should not make the fatal mistake of "persevering backwards 
capability at all cost" scenario, that what c++ is for.

Argue that the benefit of readability overweight the cost of 
breaking peoples code, which can be easily fix with the rename 
feature that comes with IDE and tools. Stand your ground. Please! 
I do not want to go around and beg package makers to label their 
functions @named for readability sake!

-Alex