Removing ddoc and unittest [Was: Re: How does D improve...]

[Walter Bright]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Someone who's a big unittesting fan should write up a proposal on
> this.  I think unittests are neat and all -- I probably don't use them
> as much as I should -- but I don't really know what's so great about
> named unittests or other things people mention that D's unittests
> lack.  I suspect Walter may be in the same boat.  You can't address a
> problem if you don't really understand it.

I guess I am in that boat. It reminds me of a couple decades ago, when 
you could buy profilers for your programs. Everybody bought them, but 
nobody used them. The inch thick manual remained in its shrinkwrap.

I suspected the problem was the manual. The profile tool was packed with 
every feature imaginable, all thoroughly configurable. Unfortunately, 
actually running the profiler and getting a result took a considerable 
investment of time by the programmer trying to figure out how to do it. 
He rarely bothered.

That's why the profiler for dmd is just -profile. Nothing to learn. Same 
goes for the coverage analyzer.

Experience has led me to believe that unit tests are extremely valuable, 
but I rarely see them used - even by professionals. I wanted to make 
them so easy to use in D that it would hook people in. That's why they 
are the way they are - super simple, next to nothing to learn, and they 
work.