What ever happened to move semantics?

[Timon Gehr]

On 2/28/24 23:01, Don Allen wrote:
> As I've said in previous posts, I've written a lot of Rust and now a 
> fair amount of D. I prefer D as it is, now that I've solved some issues 
> with my own lack of knowledge about the available tools.
> 
> I want to make a comment about all this chatter about move semantics. I 
> freely admit that I have not read the proposal for doing this, if there 
> is a fully-fleshed-out proposal, and I probably never will.
> ...

Well, suit yourself.

> My issue is this: Rust has led the move semantics charge.

Linear typing is a very old idea.

> Grafting move 
> semantics onto feels to me like me-too-ism and just cluttering the D 
> environment with yet another wart that it does not need.

No, the warts are here now. Move semantics is a way to get rid of 
existing warts.

> Move semantics 
> in Rust results in the programmer becoming an key part of the memory 
> management system, whether they realize it or not.

It's just another tool. Use it when it is appropriate.

> Anyone who has 
> wrestled with the borrow checker or gotten themselves into lifetime hell 
> with Rust will understand (unless they've drunk the Kool-Aid) what I am 
> talking about.

Move semantics is not the same as borrowing.

> ...
> 
> So before cluttering the D environment with an unneeded me-too effort 
> (my opinion!) and wasting scarce developer resources on this when there 
> is so much else to be done that D needs more than a borrow-checker, I 
> urge you to think very carefully about this.

You seem to confuse DIP1000 with move constructors. Move semantics is 
one of the things D needs more than a borrow checker.

Anyway, move constructors _are_ among the top 10 priorities now for the 
language.