DIP 1031--Deprecate Brace-Style Struct Initializers--Community Review Round 1 Discussion

[rikki cattermole]

On 16/02/2020 3:39 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 2/14/20 11:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 2/14/2020 7:59 PM, jxel wrote:
>>> ... greatly complicating ...
>>
>> I know that n.g. discussions have a tendency to defend to the death a 
>> single stone and forget the quarry, but come on.
> 
>  From the perspective of the user, the complications in the compiler or 
> library are of zero significance. They care about what they have to 
> write to get what they want, and how that code performs.
> 
> In other words, they are not even in the quarry, but in the processing 
> plant (or whatever you call the place the stones go after they are 
> harvested).
> 
> -Steve

Except when the compiler ICE's out, they certainly care then.

Compiler errors are to be expected when you don't have a full time team 
working on a compilers internal.

 From Walter's perspective it makes sense to want to limit the surface 
area of potential new bugs when you don't have the support to back you up.

You can talk about quarries and processing plants but either the 
customer gets the exact product they want in the time that they have 
paid for or they don't.

If we genuinely cared about the user, we should be doing HCI studies and 
doing formal proving of language constructs. But we don't. We cut 
corners because we have no choice to do so as it is too costly.

The best way to resolve this situation from what I've seen is to heed 
off as many different perspectives in the DIP and have the DIP author 
chime in to expand on the discussion as soon as reasonably possible. 
This is something Walter could improve on.