Greenwashing

[Paolo Invernizzi]

On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 15:00:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 5/28/20 3:36 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> On Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 01:23:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
>> wrote:
>>> On 5/27/20 8:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:57:00 PM MDT Meta via 
>>>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 18:50:50 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Based on some of Walter's comments, it also sounds like he
>>>>>> intends to make nothrow the default in another DIP, which 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> also a terrible idea. I'm increasingly worried about the 
>>>>>> future
>>>>>> of D with some of where these DIPs are going.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with nothrow by default? Probably 97% of code
>>>>> doesn't need to throw exceptions.
>>>>
>>>> If anything, I would say the opposite.
>>>
>>> It actually doesn't matter what's more common (and I agree 
>>> with Jonathan, there's actually a lot of throwing calls 
>>> because of the calls that you make into other functions). 
>>> What matters is that there are functions that are actually 
>>> nothrow that aren't marked nothrow. Hence the desire that 
>>> these functions should actually be marked nothrow implicitly 
>>> so people who care about that can just use the functions 
>>> without issue.
>>>
>> 
>> What make me feel "mhmm" is that the motivation is always 
>> "because no throw is speediest, so should be the default" ...
>
> That's not the motivation for the default.

DIP 1029, Rationale:

"The problem is that exceptions are not cost-free, even in code 
that never throws. Exceptions should therefore be opt-in, not 
opt-out. Although this DIP does not propose making exceptions 
opt-in, the throw attribute is a key requirement for it. The 
attribute also serves well as documentation that yes, a function 
indeed can throw."

Maybe I'm wrong, but when Walter uses "not cost-free" he seldom 
refers to something else than ... speed.