Old problem with performance

[Weed]

Don пишет:
> Weed wrote:
>> Christopher Wright пишет:
>>> Weed wrote:
>>>> Kagamin пишет:
>>>>> Weed Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Will the language change?
>>>>> Hmm... You already has Walter's answer. He's the boss.
>>>> I want a more specific answer (yes or no) if possible...
>>> It will not. If you come up with some really awesome use case, then it
>>> could, but nobody has yet, and the issue comes up every few months.
>>
>> Good (I think) use cases have been in this thread
> 
> They have not. The examples have been incomplete. You've provided use
> cases involving classes, but haven't given _any_ details about the
> contents of those classes.
> 
> It's possible that you have indeed found use cases, but you haven't
> actually shown them here.

I do not understand the claims.

For example, any class that implements the mathematical object (matrix,
vector, number, etc.) is suitable for example. I think it is obvious.

Yes, the discussion in this thread showed that almost always possible
for each case to find a different approach, using additives and other
scary code. But what if these "perversions" flaw somewhere in the idea
of a "reference-only" type?

I understand people who are against the changes of language, as they
would at least explore these changes. I myself belong to those people, I
do not like changes associated with cosmetic amenities, breaking the
old-established solution for years.

I also understand the people who came from the languages Java and C#,
which is not familiar with the semantics of the class value.

But just such a case, when the inertia hinders the development of
language and prevents them winning at least a substantial number of
positions. (Namely: the replacement of old C++. Yes, I believe, without
C++ replacement functionality D will not be needed.)

I think the problem is real and requires action. Not sure it will be a
value semantic. Maybe we come up with something entirely new? I do not know.

But the problem is that one must at least acknowledge it and not come
off the common phrases that "your use cases are not serious" etc.