Prototype of Ownership/Borrowing System for D

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Sunday, 24 November 2019 at 02:33:50 UTC, mipri wrote:
> I'm actually very interested in criticisms of @live (I hope
> more people are testing it than is apparent from the posts
> here), and even of alternatives that won't happen.

I enjoyed reading your testing of this experimental feature. :-)

> But I don't
> have a four-year degree with a major of "the last 300 years of
> your bitter disputes about language design", and every single
> post of yours has required that.

There are many angles to verification and type systems, I don't 
think you will find anyone that has a complete understanding. 
Even professors have a rather narrow subfield of verifiable 
programming where they have deep understanding (and then some 
overview over the rest of the field).

What is certain though, is that there are no easy paths to a 
workable solution. So being sceptical is healthy...

@live should be watched as babysteps not as a solution.  But you 
need to take many babysteps to learn how to walk. So in that 
regard this is an interesting move.

I personally think that it would be better to split the language 
into two, one library-language and one application language. The 
application language should be almost as easy to deal with as 
Python, and then move all the complications and @attributes and 
what not down into the library-language.

I don't think application programmers want to deal with pure, 
live etc etc. You have to keep the semantics simple on the higher 
levels.