Wed Oct 17 - Avoiding Code Smells by Walter Bright

[nobodycares]

On Sunday, 4 November 2018 at 15:40:03 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
>
> There are many potential features that wouldn't cause problems 
> in isolation. Should we add all of them? Obviously not; the 
> result would be a horribly complex language that takes too much 
> time to learn and is impossible to maintain.
>
> So instead, we need to aggressively filter out potential added 
> features to ensure that what they add is sufficiently important 
> to justify later maintenance costs and the effort of learning 
> things.
>
> The justification for this feature rests on real-world examples 
> of bugs that have been caused by its lack.

I think there are more than enough real-world examples, of where 
issues around 'type safety', or lack of, have caused a sufficient 
number of bugs, to warrant a discussion about ways to further 
improve type safety.

D module's are not type safe, at least as far as the code within 
that module is concerned. To have to go to silly lengths just to 
get type safety in D.

D is language the favors convenience 1st. type safety 2nd... or 
is it 3rd..

This lack of enforcable type safety *within* a module, leads to 
undisciplned code. Phobos is a 'real-world' example of it.

D needs an 'Industrial Strength D' book, as well as an 'Effective 
D'.

I assume the moderator(s) doesn't like me anymore, as my posts 
are no longer being published. Great way to run a discussion 
forum by the way.