Regarding the proposed Binray Literals Deprecation

[IGotD-]

On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 14:48:12 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
>
> There are multiple ways that complexity has been used on this 
> thread, which I think contributed to a lot of disagreements. It 
> might be better in the future if people make clear whether they 
> refer to compiler-complexity or user-complexity (or call it 
> developer-complexity, same idea).
>
> I don't have the knowledge to comment on how they impact 
> compiler-complexity.
>
> I think most people would agree that removing binary literals 
> would not meaningfully reduce user-complexity. I haven't heard 
> of a new D programmer struggling with understanding about how 
> binary literals interact with some other feature in a complex 
> way.  They aren't that frequently used, but people can look up 
> how they work if you need them. However, there's also an 
> asymmetry. The more a user makes use of them, the larger the 
> potential cost to them for the removal. So, even if there is a 
> minor reduction of user-complexity, the people who make use of 
> them face a larger cost. I think this is what frustrates some 
> on the thread.
>
> I would echo the comments of others about the importance of 
> automated tools to reduce the burden on users of these kinds of 
> changes. I don't recall anyone mentioning the removal of 
> complex/imaginary numbers, but the issues are the same.

Common number literals should be a part of the compiler and not 
some kind of library. In the case of betterC you don't want to 
pull in Phobos just have simple number literals which will not 
even compile as a bare bone. BetterC will be used for near HW 
programming where binary literals are useful.

You talking about complexity and these are simple number 
literals. This thread has really made me lose faith in the D 
project all together. When you can't support simple things in the 
compiler, what happens with more complex features? Will you stand 
there with empty eyes as birdhouses? Painful thread for me it is.