auto arr = [1, 2, 3] should be a static array, not a GC allocated array

[Araq]

On Saturday, 16 July 2022 at 15:12:19 UTC, Ogi wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 July 2022 at 13:30:58 UTC, jfondren wrote:
>> On Thursday, 14 July 2022 at 13:14:59 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
>>> It is misleading, nobody expect this to be GC allocated
>>
>> People expect that who try to append to it later on in the 
>> function.
>
> And this also should be killed with fire. We need a clean 
> distinction between static arrays, GC-controlled dynamic 
> arrays, and slices.

Correct but that's just one out of many examples where C++ is 
simply better designed. C++'s references work better than D's 
`inout`, C++'s const system works better as it allows for 
reference counted containers ("logical constness"), D's postblits 
had to be replaced with copy constructors (like C++ does it), 
`shared` doesn't mean anything (C++ lacks it), D's class 
construct introduces a value vs pointer semantics schism that C++ 
consciously avoided, D's class construct comes with a monitor 
(C++ does not have this overhead), C++ does not misuse the `enum` 
keyword, C++ lacks an effect system like @nogc @safe @etc that 
simply gets in the way, C++ doesn't need "interface", it allows 
for multiple inheritance instead so that's an entire entity that 
it lacks as it doesn't need it.

Now you can disagree with this list all you want and point out 
details which I got wrong but the point here is: Don't be 
surprised that D never really replaced C++, it's not the lack of 
marketing and it's not the lack of manpower either, the language 
is not designed all that well and it didn't learn much from C++.