Tango vs Phobos
Sean Kelly
sean at invisibleduck.org
Thu Aug 14 10:55:29 PDT 2008
Nick B wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> == Quote from bearophile (bearophileHUGS at lycos.com)'s article
>>> Sean Kelly:
>>>> I would prefer that the old behavior the the default and that "new &fn"
>>>> or something similar would be used for full closures.
>>> We have already discussed why this is negative, when practically
>>> possible in D the default has to be
>> the "safer" version (what "safer" is can be debated).
>>
>> It's just a matter of opinion, I suppose. As D is a systems language,
>> I don't
>> agree with many arguments about safety when that safety conflicts with my
>> ability to control what the language is doing behind the scenes.
>> Portability
>> between versions is also an issue--code that is correctly designed for
>> D 1.0
>> may be unusable on D 2.0 because the default behavior for certain
>> language
>> features is different, although the syntax is still completely legal.
>> Also, there
>> isn't any way to easily grep for the use of delegates so finding such
>> trouble
>> spots requires a manual code review.
>>
>> Because one of Tango's core design goals was to have no hidden
>> allocations,
>> this behavior is a major concern for me because it forces me to choose
>> between elegant algorithm design (which works fine in D 1.0) and a design
>> that's portable between language versions in a way I find acceptable.
>> I think
>> if/when Tango is ever released for D 2.0 necessity may dictate that it
>> be an
>> unsupported release for reasons such as this.
>>
>
> Can you explain what you mean by a "unsupported release" ?
For example, Tango currently provides guarantees about hidden memory
allocations -- ie. it doesn't perform any, really. But with the new
closure rules in D2 we can't provide the same guarantee without a
redesign. So I'd consider Tango on D2 to be unsupported because it
won't be able to provide the guarantees we provide on D1 without a
rewrite, which we aren't planning on doing.
> Do you mean that all bugs will not fixed or only a certain sub-set of
> bugs ?
See above. I wouldn't consider these bugs per se, just documented behavior.
Sean
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list