Template Metaprogramming Made Easy (Huh?)

[Nick Sabalausky]

"language_fan" <foo at bar.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:h8b51a$bs6$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:18:58 -0400, #ponce thusly wrote:
>
>> So I'm a 22 yo oldschool developer.
>> One reason I hate VM language is not really about speed but that you
>> have few control on what the CPU do, and very few control over memory
>> and cache usage. Compound value types also are often lacking (especially
>> in Java).
>
> Nowadays when everyone soon has 12-core CPUs in front of them, especially
> x86-64 ones, managing each register and memory module (cache or main
> memory) manually is a major pain in the ass.

That's just plain arrogant and ignorant. I swear, the next time I see yet 
another person pulling out the "That's all they offer in the stores, 
therefore that must be only thing that's actually in use, and if anyone uses 
less, well then screw them for not being as big of a consumer whore as I am" 
bullshit, my head's going to explode.

> Why do you want to do that
> in the first place? For greater speed? The problem is, your program
> usually has tons of memory leaks, potential race conditions and
> deadlocks, and states where is segfaults. Even if you develop for free, I
> do not want to use your buggy pos. YMMV
>

Have you even been paying *any* attention to D? You're on a D newsgroup, but 
your paragraph right there makes it sound as if you think C++ is the only 
native-compiled language that is, was or ever will be. I'd expect that kind 
of ignorance on a C++ board, or a Java or Python board, but here...where 
there's a giant glaring counter-example right under your nose? Are you 
kidding me?

Plus...what in the world makes you think VMed languages don't get errors, 
memory leaks, and race conditions? Segfaults I'll grant you, but that's 
hardly any different for the end-user than an unhandled exception.

>> Also, when some part of a program is slow in C / C++ / D, most of time
>> you have a way to speed it up. It may be painful but there is one.
>
> So you are part of the efficiency is priority #1 subgroup, after all.
> There is nothing wrong with that, I just happened to guess that.

Don't be so obtuse. Just because something is occasionally *a* priority, 
clearly does not imply it's a person's #1 priority.