What the hell is wrong with D?

[EntangledQuanta]

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 22:11:44 UTC, Jesse Phillips 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 19:16:05 UTC, EntangledQuanta 
> wrote:
>> The D community preaches all this safety shit but when it 
>> comes down to it they don't seem to really care(look at the 
>> other responses like like "Hey, C does it" or "Hey, look up 
>> the operator precedence"... as if those responses are 
>> meaningful).
>
>
> jmh530 points out why you're met with such non-agreement of the 
> issue. You're not open do discussion of why it is implemented 
> in the fashion it is. Instead it is an attack on the community 
> and Walter as though there is no logical reason it is 
> implemented in the way that it is.
>
I'm not open to discussion because it is not a discussion. There 
is no point. What could would it do to explain the short 
commings? You see the responses, the mentality. People think 
doing something wrong is valid because it was done. Two wrongs 
don't make a right no matter how you justify it. When someone 
takes on the task of doing a job and pretends the results to a 
community then refuse to accept responsibility for the failure to 
do the job properly and perpetuate ignorance(invalid logic that 
creates confusing, wastes peoples times, etc) then they deserve 
to be criticized, it's a two way street. When they then make up 
excuses to try to justify the wrong and turn it in to a right, 
they deserved to be attacked. It not just a harmless mistake. 
Peoples lives could be a jeopardy, but do they care? Do they 
REALLY care? Of course not. They don't see it as a significant 
issue. Simply learn how D works exactly and you'll be fine! Of 
course, for someone that programs in about 20 different languages 
regularly, having logical consistency is important.

It's one thing to say "Well, I made a mistake, lets try to remedy 
it the best we can" than to say "Well, too bad, we can't break 
backwards compatibility!". People want to perpetuate 
insanity(which is what being illogical is).


> Sure you can express that it is illogical to have made that 
> choice, but that requires first know what used to make that 
> decision.

No, it doesn't logic is not based on circumstances, it's based on 
something that is completely independent of us... which is why it 
is called logic... because it is something we can all agree on 
regardless of our circumstances or environment... it is what math 
and hence all science is based on and is the only real thing that 
has made steady progress in the world. Illogic is what all the 
insanity is based on... what wars are from, and just about 
everything else, when you actually spend the time to think about 
it, which most people don't.

> For example one of the original principles for D was:
> If it looks like C it should have the same semantics or be a 
> compiler error (note this was not completely achieved)
>
> Now if we look at other languages we see, they implement it the 
> same as C or they don't implement it at all. Just based on this 
> it would make sense to choose to implement it like C if it is 
> desired to have.
>
> The suggestion I made fulfills this, but it also slightly 
> defeats one purpose of the operator, being terse.
>
> We also now need to keep backwards compatibility, this fails.

Again, two wrongs don't make a right. What is the point of 
reimplementing C exactly as C is done? There is already a C, why 
have two? Was the whole point of D not to improve upon C? Doesn't 
D claim to be a "better C"? So, if you are claiming that the 
choice for the ternary operator's issue of ambiguity was to be 
consistent with C then that directly contradicts the statements 
that D is suppose to be safer and better. I'm fine with this AS 
long as it is clearly stated as such and people don't try to 
justify or pretend that it is a good thing, which is exactly the 
opposite of what they. Most are followers of the cult and cannot 
make any rational decision on their own but simply parrot the 
elders. So, when they do that, I have no desire or reason to be 
logical with them(again, it takes two to tango).

For example, you have been rational, so I will be rational with 
you. To be rational, you must argue logically which you have 
done. Even though you haven't really argued the issue(of course, 
I didn't state it clear on purpose because this isn't really a 
discussion thread... I knew that the trolls/cult members would 
spew there stupid shit so I was just trolling them. Of course, I 
always hope that there would be some light in the tunnel, which 
you provided a glimmer... still all meaningless, nothing will 
change, at least not with the cult members, but someone that is 
not so brainwashed might be semi-enlightened if they implement 
their own language and not make the same mistakes).

e.g., my attack is on the claims that D attempts to be *safe* and 
a *better C* and yet this(the ternary if) is just another 
instance of them contradicting themselves. Presenting something 
as safer when it is not gives the perception of safety and can 
actually be more dangerous than the original.