FeedbackThread: DIP 1038-- at nodiscard--Community Review Round 1

[Robert burner Schadek]

On Thursday, 10 December 2020 at 14:58:56 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 December 2020 at 09:40:08 UTC, Robert burner 
> Schadek wrote:
>> The "Rationale -> Error handling without exceptions sections 
>> argument" is wrong.
>>
> [...]
>>
>> The only "correct" way to get to any percentage, is to try to 
>> use all packages from code that is nothrow and/or @nogc.
>
> I am well aware that these numbers are not perfectly accurate. 
> The point of using them is only to get a rough approximation of 
> the proportion of D code that could benefit from an alternative 
> to exceptions. Unless there is a reason to think they are 
> strongly *biased* (i.e., there are many more false positives 
> than false negatives), it does not really matter to the DIP's 
> argument if they are off by a few percent one way or the other.
>
> As you point out, the amount of work required to get more 
> accurate data is prohibitive, so the actual choice is between 
> "rough, approximate numbers" and "no numbers at all." I think 
> the DIP is stronger with the numbers than without them, even 
> accounting for their shortcomings, but I am happy to hear 
> arguments to the contrary.

I have to disagree forcefully, no numbers are highly preferable 
unless you
have shown that they are accurate, within a few percent.
The burden of proof is on the DIP.

Please read the following sympathetic.
Using these false numbers to emphasize the usefulness of this DIP 
has the opposite
effect.
Every word I read after seeing these claims left a foul taste, 
even though I
consider this a useful DIP.