Handling constructive criticism

[Sean Kelly]

== Quote from Bruno Medeiros (brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail)'s article
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > etc.  That said, the only compelling reasons for me to upgrade to 2.0 are
> > struct ctors and overload groups (or whatever they're called).  The const
> > syntax is a dis-incentive, as is the dual meaning of enum, dynamic
> > closures, etc.  They all complicate the syntax in undesirable ways or
> > cause problems while attempting to solve solutions I don't need solved
> > for the work I do.
> Huh? I understand the issues with const and enum, but what's the problem
> with dynamic closures?

They currently allocate dynamic memory to store stack data for many delegates
that never actually escape the declaration scope.  No big deal for the average
program perhaps, but it eliminates delegates as an option for performance-critical
code, at least without an examination of the assembly output.


Sean