We're #1 on Hacker News at the moment!

[welkam]

On Tuesday, 28 April 2020 at 18:25:28 UTC, Ethan wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 April 2020 at 17:06:03 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> Type inference itself isn't bad, but the auto in documentation 
>> is something I agree isn't great.
>
> My hot take after years of explicit typing (remember manual for 
> iterator loops in C++?) and more D metaprogramming than most is 
> that "auto is perfect for things you don't intend the user to 
> store".
>
> Since that's all that anti-auto arguments come down to here - 
> the only rational reason you need to know the return type of a 
> function is that you intend on storing it somewhere. And that's 
> kinda pointless with ranges returned by std.algorithm for 
> example.
>
> Perhaps there's actually a design win to be had here if we can 
> define nostore or something like that as a return qualifier...

My take on all those that insist on explicit return types is that 
they have spent long time writing in C and/or C++ and then tried 
to code in D without learning the language first. Because D 
doesnt behave the same as their previous languages they have 
difficulties using the language. Then they proceed to blame 
external world for their problems.