Solving the impossible?

[Everlast]

On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 22:01:45 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 20:37:05 UTC, Everlast wrote:
>> Also, the biggest complaint is that when we use [] attached to 
>> a type it has a specific meaning as "an array of". e.g., int[] 
>> means an array of int's.
>>
>> But int[] a... then changes as we don't have an array of int's 
>> any more but simply a sequence of ints. While internally it 
>> might not matter it just doesn't jive with normal type syntax 
>> IMO.
>
> The parameter `int[] a...` is an an array of ints just like any 
> other `int[]` in D. If you don't believe me, see for yourself 
> here: https://run.dlang.io/is/IJdovg
>
> I understand that the syntax does not align with your 
> expectations. Instead of complaining about it, I would urge you 
> to set your preconceptions aside and learn D with an open mind. 
> You'll be less frustrated, more productive, and more successful.

One of the things that makes a good language is it's internal 
syntactic consistency. This makes learning a language easier and 
also makes remembering it easier. Determinism is a very useful 
tool as is abstraction consistency. To say "Just except D the way 
it is" is only because of necessity since that is the way D is, 
not because it is correct. (There are a lot of incorrect things 
in the world such as me "learning" D... since I've been 
programming in D on and off for 10 years, I just never used a 
specific type for variadics since I've always use a variadic type 
parameter)

To justify that a poor design choice is necessary is precisely 
why the poor design choice exists in the first place. These are 
blemishes on the language not proper design choices.  For 
example, it is necessary for me to pay taxes, but it does not 
mean that taxes are necessary.