Opportunity

[Paulo Pinto]

On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 00:47:09 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Monday, 8 April 2013 at 21:51:11 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Am 08.04.2013 18:11, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>>> On 4/8/13 10:22 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>>>> <<Originally sent to wrong list, sorry if this appears a 
>>>> cross-posting.>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that the entire C++ standards committee will be at 
>>>> ACCU 2013, I've
>>>> decided to do a lightning talk on why D and Go are better 
>>>> tools for any
>>>> native coding problem than C++.
>>>>
>>>>   pigeon[500] pigeons;
>>>>   pigeons[random(500)] = new cat;
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> This is great. Let us know how we can support you.
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to hear how your argument for Go 
>>> addresses its
>>> tenuous interface with C, pervasive indirect calls, and 
>>> compulsive use
>>> of GC.
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Lets not forget the lack of generics, the religious view 
>> against dynamic linking and errors for unused variables and 
>> imports.
>
> The error for unrecheable statement is really of the same kind.

I know it is hard to balance these type of errors, but unused 
imports and variables seems a bit extreme.

--
Paulo